Last year, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA appointed a Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage. The committee was given two years to study how the theology and practice of marriage have developed in the Reformed tradition and the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community.


This adult education course tries to do something similar over an eight-week period for St. Andrew Presbyterian in Iowa City. Throughout this discussion, we hope to hear from class participants’ personal experiences and questions concerning sexuality and the Presbyterian faith.


For questions or comments, contact Jeff Charis-Carlson at

jcharisc@press-citizen.com.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Class notes for Week 4

Discussion during Week Four shifted from reactions to the “For the Bible Tells Me So” documentary (we’ll be watching the final third on Oct. 18) to reactions to N.T. Wright’s paper on “Communion and Koinonia,” what Wright describes as “Pauline Reflections on Tolerance and Boundaries.” The paper is helpful for our purposes because it challenges people of faith — Anglicans in Wright’s case — to pull upon their own traditions as they read the scriptures and discuss how open and affirming congregations should be toward their gay and lesbian members.

Discussions began by dividing into groups, making introductions and then having individuals share why they chose to attend St. Andrew in the first place. The answers ranged from the quality of the youth and music programs, the strong intellectual content now retired pastor Mark Martin brought to every sermon and the close intimacy of the small group ministry. Some people said they knew why they started attending St. Andrew, but were unsure why they keep attending — citing the difficulties in con-necting to people in a large congregation, the failure of the congregation to reach out sufficiently in times of loss and confusion, the current debate over relocating the church and the recent decision to turn down the request of Michelle Wikner and Michelle Norman to use the sanctuary for their wedding ceremony.

Without reporting back to the large group, the discussion shifted to responding to some of the more provocative statements in Wright’s paper. First:

“In order to have any serious discussion about ethical issues, we need to remind ourselves the whole time of the importance of Reason (along with, and obedient to Scripture and Tradition) as one strand of the classic threefold Anglican cord. The current fashion for substituting ‘experience’, which all too eas-ily means ‘feeling’, or ‘reported feeling’, is simply not the same sort of thing. Experience matters, but it doesn’t belong in an account of authority; put it there, and the whole notion of ‘authority’ itself decon-structs before your very eyes.”

Groups were asked how they ranked the factors of Experience, Scripture, Reason and Tradition when it comes to discussing matters of faith and sexuality. After one group noted that we need to keep all four in mind when discussing the issue, all the other groups named Scripture as the first guiding principle. The rankings varied after that point. One group challenged the definition of the vague term “Tradition,” wondering:

  • Whether it means helping us get back to a first-century content for what the New Testament writers would mean (a skill that N.T. Wright has been developing for his entire career),
  • Whether it refers to the Church’s 2,000-year history since then (which has been hit or miss at best) or
  • Whether it (in a Presbyterian context) refers to a Reformed Tradition is based on people applying Reason and Experience to Scripture to challenge church Tradition.
(Some of the groups decided to ignore the question altogether and began talking about the biblical passages or otherwise tried to catch up first time class participants.)

Then we read through and discussed the paragraph immediate before the above quotation in which Wright, somewhat snarkily, writes:

“The fact that our early twenty-first century instinct is to analyze Paul in terms of prejudices and in-consistency shows well enough what sort of intellectual — or perhaps we should say anti-intellectual — climate we now live in within the western church at least. We have allowed ourselves to say ‘I feel’ when we mean ‘I think’, collapsing serious thought into knee-jerk reactions. We have become tolerant of everything except intolerance, about which we ourselves are extremely intolerant. If someone thinks through an issue and, irrespective of his or her feelings on the subject, reaches a considered judgement that doing X is right and doing Y is wrong, they no sooner come out and say so than someone else will accuse them of phobia. If someone says stealing is wrong, we expect someone else to say, ‘You only say that because you’re kleptophobic.’ You will see easily enough where this argument is going.”

Groups were to discuss the degree to which they agreed with Wright’s assessment of the cultural moment, or how and why they found it to be too sharp or dismissive.

Some participants said that Wright elevated Paul’s letters too highly and failed to put them into a framework of Christ’s inclusivity and the command to love they neighbor. Some groups continued their earlier discussion of Experience, Reason, Scripture and Tradition.

Discussions then moved into an account of Presbyterian policy and concerns about living in an “unrepentant state.” Presbyterian policy singles out self-defined, sexually-active gays and lesbians from serving as elders and clergy. Technically, an elder or a minister could be openly unrepentant about other sinful behavior and not face such automatic disqualification — although there could and should be some discipline depending on the severity of the sin.

The observation led to two different questions:
  • Are same-sex relationships inherently sinful and, thus, anyone in a committed same-sex relation-ship is in an “unrepentant state”? Or, as argued in “For the Bible Tells Me So,” is there room in the Re-formed tradition for gay and lesbians in committed relationships — relationships that would then be blessed by the church?
  • Even if same-sex relations are prohibited — or at least a same-sex relationship is considered to be less than a biblical ideal — why should the church deal with these relationships any differently than it has dealt with divorce over the past few decades — making provisions for members to divorce, remarry and resume church leadership positions despite the biblical restrictions in the New Testament?
For example, when St. Andrew called Mark Martin as pastor in the 1980s, the church lost some members because Mark was divorced and remarried. If Paul says he would prefer everyone to be celibate like him but admits that it’s better to marry than to burn, shouldn’t the Church make similar allowances for same-sex unions?

Discussion also turned to what options are available to this and other congregations now that the question has been raised. (We will discuss these options in more detail during our final session.)

2 comments:

  1. I'm not so sure that we can compare someone in a same-sex relationship with someone who has been divorced and remarried. Divorce, according to scripture (including Jesus and Paul), is a sin except in instances of infidelity within the relationship. In cases where someone divorces and remarries outside of that exception, then (again according to scripture) the person has committed adultery. The marriage may have begun with an act of adultery, but it is still a marriage. The second marriage would not be thought of continually living in adultery, for the man and woman are married to each other and no one else.

    In the case of homosexual relationships, the act of homosexuality is continual. It has to do with the physical act itself, not the person's "identity." Since for the Christian, one's identity is that of being in Christ, and not their sexuality.

    For a church to not allow leaders to be divorced and remarried for whatever reason is against the whole meaning of grace and forgiveness. If even God forgives and forgets our sins and no longer holds them against us, why should the church? If a person is in a same-sex relationship and then becomes celibate or enters a marriage with a person of the opposite sex, then they too should be allowed a leadership role - including ordination.

    "From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, they are a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation." 2 Corinthians 5:16-19

    ReplyDelete
  2. Food for thought....

    Suppose someone rewrote Matthew’s comment from a different perspective. It might go something like this:

    I'm not so sure that we can compare someone who has been divorced and remarried with someone in a same-sex relationship. Homosexuality, according to scripture (at least according to Paul), is a sin (without any known exceptions). In cases where someone living in Iowa City is legally married to a person of the same gender, then (again according to scripture) the person has committed the sin of being an unrepentant homosexual. The marriage may have begun with an act of sin, but it is still a legal marriage. However, under Presbyterian law, the legally married same sex couple would be thought of continually living in sin, even though the otherwise monogamous Christian couple are married to each other and no one else. In the case of remarriage after divorce, the act of being remarried is continual. It has to do with the physical act of being remarried itself, not the person's "identity." Since for the Christian, one's identity is that of being in Christ, and not their marital status.

    For a church to not allow leaders to be homosexual for whatever reason is against the whole meaning of grace and forgiveness. If even God forgives and forgets our sins and no longer holds them against us, why should the church? If a person is divorced and then becomes celibate or enters a marriage with a person of any gender, then they too should be allowed a leadership role - including ordination.

    (During my tenure here at St Andrew, session has seriously debated whether two divorced members of the church needed to live apart for a while before being married in the church, whether couples “living in sin” could be Sunday School teachers and whether a divorced person living with another person as a couple could be accepted as a ruling elder).

    "From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, they are a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation." 2 Corinthians 5:16-19

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for sending in your comment. Because this is a moderated forum, it will need to be reviewed before going live. We'll try to get it on the site as quickly as possible.