Preparing to Vote on the Amendments

By Jerry Andrews.

Background

At my last installation as a pastor, my father, a ruling elder, prayed that God would make me “wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove.” No one was better positioned to know my need: “make” was his verb. Only at my best was I both; too often just one; at times not much of either. In my call as a presbyter in the PC(USA) being both has been required. So, it is now when preparing to vote on two proposed amendments.

Here is the exact wording of both amendments, with the new proposed amendments in bold.

Shall F-1.0403 be amended as follows:

The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, God unites persons through baptism, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, geography, or theological conviction. There is therefore no place in the life of the Church for discrimination against any person. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership. No member shall be denied participation or representation for any reason other than those stated in this Constitution.

Shall G-2.0104b be amended as follows:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (F-1.02). The council responsible for ordination and/or installation (G-2.0402; G-2.0607; G-3.0306) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of ordered ministry. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.0404) and in the Historic Principles of Church Order F-3.01, and in the principles of participation and representation, found in F-1.0403. Councils shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

These proposed amendments originated in the Presbytery of Olympia, which, it says, was troubled by difficulties in examining candidates for ordination and sent an overture to the General Assembly to help ease its troubles. I think the amendments will not resolve their troubles but will instead cause troubles for many others in the church. So, too, do others.

The Presbytery had found the answers of candidates to questions regarding gender identity and sexual orientation to be unsatisfactory because the candidates affirmed the traditional view of marriage. The Presbytery judged this conviction to be discriminatory, and the decision was made, therefore, not to ordain. The overture proposed by the Presbytery asked the General Assembly both to add “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” to the list of those persons against whom the church will not discriminate and to add a mandate that every session and every presbytery now examine every candidate for every office of the church every time on matters of gender identity and sexual orientation. No particular questions or answers are mandated; the examination is required. The implication of this is clear and, in Olympia Presbytery, in practice already. Whatever the questions may be, if the candidate affirms the traditional view of marriage, that answer may be judged to be discriminatory, and the candidate denied ordination.

I see neither innocence nor wisdom in this.

The two proposed amendments now come to the presbyteries for their ratification or rejection. Votes will be taken between now and next July.

The following is written in hopes of helping presbyters prepare for their vote by offering some thoughts and considerations which they may wish to offer to their congregations and presbyteries.

In this we will do well to find other near-by presbyters ––right, left, and center––who share our misgivings and opposition and to make common cause. It is worth noting that some of the strongest voices of opposition before, during, and after the General Assembly in July were those committed to the full inclusion of sexual minorities––identity and orientation.

Congregations

The Constitution has long required that an examination be conducted prior to installation by both presbytery and session. In the practice of the church these examinations vary widely, especially by sessions, but are mandated to ask the constitutional questions and hear the constituted answers. The new mandate requires an examination without prescribed questions or answers of all candidates for the office of deacon or elder in your congregation. The constitutional questions for ordination are specific, so, too, are the expected prescribed answers. The new inquiry is absent this. Less troublesome would be the question: “Do you pledge to abstain from discrimination against any baptized member?”

This will be philosophically and practically troubling in congregations that are “blue,” that is, progressive and liberal. This new mandate is, at the least, most illiberal, thus violating their liberal vision and hopes for the church. Many progressives and liberals have spoken on how this mandate wars against their work in the church to make it more inclusive. Tolerance and diversity will be diminished thereby. Only those affirming a progressive opinion on matters of sexuality may be affirmed. Gone is the “big tent” with its wide welcome; it will be problematic, indeed, impossible, within their congregations.

This will be potentially and probably troubling in our congregations that are “purple,” that is, equally open to those who affirm either a progressive or a traditional view of marriage, and those who are committed to neither. Each elder and deacon elected by the congregation, when examined by the session, may be required to affirm a progressive view on matters of gender identity and sexual orientation or be denied ordination. The half of the membership that cannot so affirm will then be denied the offices of the church. Pastors in purple congregations are troubled at the prospect of this exclusion. Purple will become a color of the past; they must operate as if blue, exclusively and absolutely.

This will be profoundly problematic for congregations that are “red,” that is, traditional, conservative, or evangelical. No longer can they encourage those under their care to seek ordination in the PC(USA). It will, as a matter of constitutional mandate, be denied them. Their next pastor called by the congregation from another presbytery will be denied installation. The pool of elders and deacons within the congregation will be eliminated. The congregation may neither raise nor have its chosen leadership. It is unclear how, with a good conscience, it is imagined these congregations go forward in the PC(USA). Maybe it is imagined and intended they do not.

For this reason alone––the necessarily narrowing and intentionally prohibitive restriction it places on our congregations––this amendment should be denied. We will be both wise and innocent by remembering the real and desired breadth of Christ’s church, and the life and leadership of all our congregations.

Discrimination

“Discrimination” is defined in the dictionary first as “discern,” “differentiate,” or “distinguish.” This is precisely what we presbyters are required to do when examining candidates for office. It is a good thing. But it is its second dictionary meaning that is rightly the concern––“to decide categorically rather individually” or “to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than merit.” This is a bad thing. For example, we discriminate when we examine a candidate for ordination to the ministry of Word and Sacrament about his or her academic preparation, gifts and ability for ministry, sense of call, Christian experience, etc. But we do not examine candidates about immutable characteristics of their nature or background. Why? Because “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). The Book of Order thus reads: “There is therefore no place in the life of the church for discrimination against any person.” Exactly right. To do so is a denial of the Gospel.

The first amendment proposes to add to the listed categories of “persons” against which there is to be no discrimination of this second sort “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.” Though it is not my instinct to have such a list at all, the church has been accustomed to name the categories of persons against which there has been discrimination. Nor do I think it wise to continue to add to the list additional categories. Is this itself not the categorizing we want so much to end? And, because the named list is constitutionally treated as an exhaustive not representative list, does it not call attention to who is not on the list? It is better, I think, to eliminate the sentence entirely. Sufficiently challenging and commanding, inspirational and aspirational, would be the remainder of a now clearer and more potent, and wiser and more innocent paragraph:

The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, God unites persons through baptism. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership. No member shall be denied participation or representation for any reason other than those stated in this Constitution.

That possibility is not now before us, only adding to the current list. To be clear, it is not right and ought not to be permitted to discriminate against persons. And it is worth remembering that our personhood is defined by Jesus Christ––not by who we think we are, but by who we are “in Christ.”

Détente

After a long generation of division on matters that highlighted sexuality the church decided, in the hopes of ending such division, to include and recognize both traditional and progressive views regarding sexuality, and thus specifically changing ordination standards and re-defining marriage. While differences in convictions would continue, no one was to be excluded for holding and articulating their convictions. It was determined that individual conscience trumped ecclesial uniformity.

Holding evangelical convictions as I do, this decision was, I admit, not of my choosing. But the church having made the decision, I chose to live in this détente. So, too, did the majority of evangelicals and those of traditional convictions. We “re-upped.” There was room and right for us.

We determined to be friends with all our colleagues in ministry and to make our contribution to the whole–– the emphases of getting the Gospel right (the theological mission), getting the Gospel out (the evangelistic mission), and getting the Gospel within (the formational mission).

We heard the often-articulated argument that this decision of détente on matters of sexuality was like what the church had done on race and gender. This was heard as a threat then; a threat now looming in these proposed amendments. It is noted that what was once prohibited ––people of color from congregations and women from office––when permitted, eventually becomes prescribed. When the standards of office and definition of marriage changed, hundreds of congregations left to avoid the prescription of one opinion and practice such as is in the proposed mandate. Many left the PC(USA), anticipating that the day would soon come when a progressive view alone would be required. Smart money was on ten years. That was ten years ago.

Again, we re-upped, trusting the church would be at its best by keeping its commitment to all. And we reupped striving to be at our best for the sake of all.

An attempt at something like these amendments may have been inevitable but their approval is not. To be clear, the second amendment removes, in no uncertain terms, the room for all provided in the détente by its new requirement. When the church opened to a progressive view of sexuality matters, promises were made by its proponents not to do what this amendment attempts to do. We keep our commitment to the whole; we ask the whole to keep its commitment to us. Many progressives and liberals also are articulating their continued commitment to a wide church and thus their opposition to the new mandate.

The argument and hope of the détente was for a new breadth in the church; a freedom to call it as you see it and to act, accordingly; a commitment to give respect for the conscience of others on these matters. In our engagements we would practice persuasion without coercion; a recognition that these matters were important, even very important, but that we could still live and serve together in the same fold despite our differences over these matters. We began to practice a high commitment to mutual forbearance.

There was a compromise in this détente formed a decade ago. Some wanted a more obvious justice that required a new uniformity of action; some wanted a more obvious truth that required a return to a traditional uniformity of confession. This was and is, to be sure, an uneasy truce. But what is apparent is that we lived together in this détente. Differences among us persist, but some basic form of common life remains. There is no wisdom or innocence in dismantling the détente.

Vocabulary Matters

It is not clear who are the category of persons denoted by “gender identity.” The public discussions I overhear, left and right, tend to appall and do little to enlighten. Placing the phrase “gender identity” between “sex” and “sexual orientation” in the constitutional wording may be intended to clarify but it does not help my understanding. Again, it is better, I think, to say “God unites persons through baptism” than to list (at the exclusion of others) some, but only some, categories.

The phrases “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” have not been defined. There is no consensus in public discourse, much less in academic or scientific circles, about what these terms mean. Their referents are already broad and will almost certainly continue to broaden. Asking the Book of Order, candidates for ordination, or ordaining bodies to keep up may be a rigor in excess of the value gained.

“Theological conviction” finishes the constitutional list. It may be the most troubling because discernment on theological matters is it at the heart of examination of officers. Though the phrase is imprecise, it can be argued it may be the one that protects me from discrimination. To hold a traditional view of marriage is not discrimination but theological conviction, a conviction based on an understanding of Scripture and the priority of Scripture in these matters. The church is committed to a breadth of theological convictions that includes this. The new mandate undermines that commitment.

Let me illustrate. In matters of discrimination generally, I think the best starting point for the church’s reflection is: “God created humanity in his own image, in the image of God created he them” (Gen. 1:27), which continues through Jesus declaring “for God so loved the world” (John 3:16). In matters of “gender identity,” I think the best starting point is: “in the image of God created he them; male and female created he them (Gen. 1:27) and continues through Paul writing: “neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28). In matters of “sexual orientation,” I think the best starting place is: “a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh,”(Gen. 2:24) and continues through our Savior reaffirming this saying: “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said ‘For this reason a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh’” (Mark 10:6-8).

I hold this theological conviction. Accordingly, I do not officiate at same-gender weddings. That this is a theological conviction does not make me right, not nearly, but it makes excluding me for thinking this, and for acting accordingly, a violation of the Constitution’s non-discrimination provision not just the détente. Others think differently than I on these matters and accordingly act differently.

For more than a decade, the PC(USA) has not required uniformity of views on sexual matters nor permitted exclusion based on conviction. This amendment encourages an exclusion by requiring an environment of examination on the matter. This unprecedented attempt in this proposed mandate is not a reversal of wills with a reversal of majorities; this amendment is a will to do what the church has always known not to do.

Examination Matters

The Constitution now calls for councils––presbyteries and sessions––responsible for ordinations and installations to examine and determine “each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of ordered ministry” and is specific only in including “the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions …” These are expressed constitutional questions with expressed answers. These, and only these, are named as requiring the examiners’ “determination.” Of the hundreds of provisions of the Book of Confessions and Book of Order, this amendment proposes to add the newly amended paragraph about discrimination to the requirement. It lifts the proposed amended paragraph to the same level as the constitutional questions. Every candidate, every transferring pastor into every presbytery, every officer-elect within the congregation, every time, is to be examined on the discrimination clause.

Do you want your session to be required to query every candidate for office every time on matters of discrimination? Do you want your presbytery to be similarly required? If you want to examine a candidate on this specific matter you may do so now at any time. Do you want to be required to do it every time?

The intention is to exclude, if not to silence and to deter, those who hold traditional views from the offices of the church. The logic employed is something like this: To disagree with a person is to fail to affirm the person and thus to discriminate against that person––to disagree is to discriminate against. This is not so and should not be allowed to be considered constitutionally so. Parents know better, friends know better, the church knows better. To disagree with another and yet hold the other dear and near may be an act of love, and is best characterized as for, not against, the person.

There is a context for this attempted overreach––the violence in our world against sexual minorities and the suicide rates of young people struggling with their sexual identity. To acknowledge these is to become angry. To hold accountable for this, and thus to make the objects of a newly weaponized constitution, those whose theological convictions are traditional is to misdirect the anger. It accomplishes no new protection; no one is safer for the intended and enforced exclusion. The anger of the righteous does not accomplish the righteousness of God (James 1:20).

One of the rationales given by the presbytery for their overture is that studies show that the children of religious parents who have “negative views on being LGBTQIA+ have higher rates of suicide attempts.” My experiences of conservative parents, my own being as conservative as any I have known, an experience shared with my sister and the twenty-two foster children with whom we were raised, is that the traditional values of our parents protected us and convinced us of their and God’s love for us.

The rationale claims that if the amendment is passed, on this matter of children, “justice will be served.” I think not. Re-constituting on what basis candidates are examined holds no promise of help within our families. This is a miss.

Ecclesial Matters

The whole attempt is a miss. I have yet to hear from any colleague in ministry––a member of a minority race or ethnicity, a woman, an older person, someone with disabilities––that they have experienced a new openness to them from calling bodies because the categories against which there is to be no discrimination includes “race,” “ethnicity,” “age,” “sex,” “disability.” Work, much work, is yet to be done. Adding categories to the list has not done it and will not do it.

The whole attempt has another target. Those who disagree with a progressive view of sexuality––identity and orientation––are clearly aimed at. The overture, almost certainly, will hit these target(s). Can one be forgiven for presuming that what everyone knows––the ineffectiveness of legislation on changing long held theological convictions––is known also to those who advance this amendment? And that what will surely result is not the new inclusion of some, but the success of excluding others––those with traditional theological convictions? And knowing this, this aim is the aim?

Knowing this, many progressive and liberal presbyters oppose this attempt and this overture. This is not the church for which they labored long and pray they have recently fashioned. This is not the broadening church they have loved.

Knowing this, evangelical and conservative presbyters oppose this attempt. While the church has broadened, we want to help it deepen with our theological mission, expand with our evangelistic mission, strengthen with our formational mission. These are Gospel helps we cannot give if our leaders and our congregations are constitutionally targeted for exclusion.

This is a challenge to a church that determines to be and takes pride in being liberal to be truly liberal.

This is a challenge to all who wonder who in their right mind would put this disparate people together in one ecclesial communion, indeed in one confession and polity. The answer, it seems to be, is God. And if God then in God’s providence; if in God’s providence then for God’s purposes; and if so, knowing and committing to those purposes is required of us, together. Together we respond.

Many––traditional and progressive alike––immediately have recognized the sad irony of a purported attempt to include all having only the effect to exclude some. It is my hope and that of others that the presbyteries will recognize and reject this amendment. Efforts by those holding traditional and progressive views are coordinating to encourage the presbyteries to decline the new dividing mandate. The church we say we are and want to be is better shown in these responsive joint efforts than in the intention and sure effect of the amendment.

Final Matters

The first part of the amendment requires us to add to the non-discrimination commitments of the church “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.” The second part of the amendment puts the commitment to non-discrimination at risk. Presbyters are being asked to add to the requirements of ordination, with “shall” language, that every candidate in every presbytery, every transferring pastor into every presbytery, every officer-elect within every congregation, every time, be examined on the non-discrimination clause.

Not since the Fundamentalists a hundred years ago has any part of the church, a General Assembly included, asked the whole church to add to the requirements for office an examination on selected matters, however important the matter may have seemed at the time.

This new mandate of the second part adds nothing to our commitment to anti-discrimination. For those who argue it gives the commitment “teeth,” I argue there has been enough biting. Let us not start again. It will not add to the rich diversity we have in Christ. It may very well newly exclude many. Let us not set that in motion.

Our Call Was Extended by Christ

For many readers of Theology Matters, like me, when our efforts failed to call the PC(USA) to affirm what we believe to be Biblical admonitions concerning sexuality and their implications for ordination standards and marriage, some of us determined that to be a continuing witness within the PC(USA) remained a divine call. We determined to lead not leave. This determination is now, again, tested.

I hope and pray we remember that our call in and to the church was not extended by the church itself but by its Savior. Our call was extended by Christ, not the PC(USA). The ordination vows we took were made to Christ and in the name of Christ. Christ’s welcome, indeed, the Spirit’s inclusion of us, is not dependent on whatever welcome some in the church offer, however sincerely. Nor is it retracted or rescinded by whatever systematic exclusion is attempted.

Our call was extended by Christ.

So too was theirs.

These two truths will be hard to remember while this amendment aims at us. But that is part of the call. Though we would prefer all our rejections be only external to the church, we have never known it to be otherwise. The PC(USA) has never felt more than now like the church that ordained me forty-five years ago over the voiced objections at my presbytery examination, noting that, because of my home church and the schools of my choosing, I would be schismatic, leading congregations out of the fellowship. Detroit Presbytery judged differently. I remain grateful and called of Christ.

The charge of bigotry at the heart of the accusation of discrimination is hard to bear. The sin is shameful; the implication of it against us is as saddening as it is maddening. The best response is to be innocent of it. Be as loving as is Christ who touches, embraces, and heals in the church now as he did in ancient Israel. This is always the commandment. It is always hard.

Let me offer an additional and difficult challenge. Those who oppose us and our convictions are not “the enemy” who attempts to take something precious away from us ––a place of and space for ministry within the PC(USA) ––and so we may be tempted to hold on to our stations ever more dearly. Instead, they who oppose us are the precious thing the enemy of the church attempts to take away from us and, thus, we are best advised to hold on ever more dearly to them. They may label us enemy and attempt to eliminate us; we may not. Even if in our lowest self-preserving moments, we can do no better than to consider them with the same disdain they have for us, and think them the enemy, we must remember that the Bible teaches us to have only two responses to our enemies––love them and pray for them. This is us at our best––innocent and wise. Few commitments are more Christ-like. I will ask for God’s grace to remember this. Even now. You?

In this season we will hold on tight to those whose convictions we share and to those who are willing to hold on tight to us with shared efforts to turn aside that which divides us, and we will affirm the Savior of the church who has called us all, together, for his sake. _______________________________________________

Jerry Andrews is Senior Pastor Emeritus of the First Presbyterian Church, San Diego, California, and serves as a Director on the Board of Theology Matters