A brief background sketch will help to
explain how I got to where I am today on this issue. I was baptized, confirmed,
and raised in the Anglican/Episcopal tradition. I was a church-hopping
Episcopalian, when I had a “Damascus Road” experience (see A Sense of Being Called) that changed my life and
set me on a path to becoming an ordained minister. That path led me through
some miraculous twists and turns to Princeton Theological Seminary, and since
my wife was a Presbyterian and we had been worshiping in a Presbyterian Church,
I decided with the encouragement of the rector of my boyhood Episcopal church,
to become a Presbyterian.
The more I studied and learned about
the Reformed tradition the more confirmed I felt in my decision. Fast forward
to 1980, when I found myself on the Faculty of the Seminary from which I had
graduated twenty-two years earlier. As a new professor, I faced the daunting
task of preparing six courses I had never taught before, two of which were
Presbyterian Polity courses, one for UPC (USA)[1]
students and one for PCUS[2]
students.
Teaching those courses necessitated
intense study of the history and the constitutional documents of those two
denominations. When they reunited in 1983 to become the Presbyterian Church(USA), our one course could focus on the new Constitution of the Presbyterian
Church (USA), consisting of The Book of Order and The Book of Confessions.
Presbyterian polity has the same
built-in tension between its various judicatories as our Federal governmental
system, which indeed was influenced considerably by if not modeled after the
Presbyterian system.[3]
In the Federal system a constant issue is whether particular Congressional
legislative acts transcend or infringe upon States’ rights.
Although the PC(USA) Constitution
spells out the rights and responsibilities of each judicatory, the built-in
conflict occurs, for example, between General Assembly’s[4]
right to set the standards of ordination for the denomination and the
Presbytery’s[5]
right to ordain ministers, or the Session’s[6]
right to ordain church officers.
In the Federal system it is the
judicial branch of government that rules on issues of States’ rights and civil
rights, the Supreme Court being the highest and ultimate determining authority
on constitutional matters. Likewise in the Presbyterian system of polity, each
judicatory above the Session has a Permanent Judicial Commission to interpret
and apply the Presbyterian Constitution in matters of conflicting rights, the
General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission being the highest court of
appeals.
The Federal Courts to this date have
considered marriage a States’ right. Each State has its own rules about who may
perform marriages and the requirements of those who wish to get married. State
laws usually authorize any recognized member of the clergy (such as a Priest, Minister,
Rabbi, Imam, Cantor, Ethical Culture Leader, etc.), or a judge, a court clerk,
justices of the peace, and ship captains, to perform marriages. Military,
prison, and hospital chaplains are also authorized to conduct marriages, as
ordained clergy members of their respective religious communions.
In most states, however, even the
clergy must first be certified or licensed to perform a marriage. The license must be signed by the couple, two
witnesses, and the officiating person, and returned to the County Clerk’s
Office or City or Borough Office that issued it within a certain number of
days. In other words, it is the State that authorizes a marriage and makes it
official! No license, no marriage! Even if a couple have exchanged their vows in
a religious service in their church and have been pronounced husband and wife
by their Minister, without a signed license they are not legally married.
Some states have laws that permit
others to apply for permission to perform marriage ceremonies on a limited
basis. For example, California law permits anyone to apply for permission to
become a Deputy Commissioner of Marriages -- the grant of authority is valid
for one day -- and thus officiate at the wedding of a family member or a friend
on that one day. Massachusetts has a similar provision.
Until recent years it has always been
assumed that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Now that the issue of
same-sex marriage has arisen, Christian laypersons and clergy alike, in
struggling to be faithful to their understanding of the teachings of Jesus
Christ and the leading of the Holy Spirit, have found themselves sharply and
often bitterly divided in their views. Some of our Presbyterian congregations
have split off from our denomination in protest against what they perceive to
be a departure from, if not a betrayal of, the traditional teachings of the
church regarding homosexuality. Still smarting over the issue of the ordination
of gay and lesbian pastors and church officers, they view the advocacy of same
sex marriages as the ultimate apostasy.
For them it is the last straw.
Throughout all this controversy over
same sex marriage I have been wrestling with my own conscience as to where I
stand on the issue. I have always taken seriously and been guided by the
pronouncements of our General Assembly, and I have respected and abided by the
Constitution of the PC(USA). The Historic Principles of Church Order listed in the first section of the third chapter of the Book of Order (F3.01) are particularly relevant
to the present discussion, especially the affirmations that “God alone is Lord
of the conscience,” that “every Christian Church, or union or association of
particular churches is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its
communion,” that “truth is in order to goodness,” that “there are truths and
forms with respect to which men (sic) of good characters and principles may
differ,” and that “the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and manners.”[7]
While I sympathize with those whose
interpretation of the Scriptures leads them to insist that marriage should be
between a man and a woman, I am impressed by those who feel that the inclusive
and gracious love of Christ constrains them to honor the faithful commitment
and genuine love that two persons of the same sex can have for each other.
Throughout my ministry I have used the
Service for the Solemnization of Marriage in the Book of Common Worship. At the conclusion of that service the
Minister declares to all present: “By the authority committed unto me as a
Minister of the Church of Christ, I declare that (name) and (name) are husband
and wife, according to the ordinance of God, and the law of the State, in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” [8]
Here’s where the conflict arises.
Marriage is a State’s right and hence a civil right. For religious persons, however, marriage is a
holy union to be blessed by God. In the Roman Catholic tradition it is one of
the seven Sacraments of the church. In most Protestant denominations, including
my own, it is a sacred ordinance of the church.
Legal marriage and holy matrimony are
not the same. Holy matrimony requires a legal license, but a civil ceremony
does not require or presume a state of holy matrimony. Conscientious ministers expect the persons they marry to take
their wedding vows seriously. That’s why they meet with them ahead of time to
discuss the service and the implications of their new relationship. I certainly
cannot speak for all ministers, but for myself I can say that I was not
particular about whom I buried, but I was very particular about whom I married.
It was never an automatic decision on my part, when a couple came to see me
about getting married. Why did they want to be married? Why by a minister
instead of a Justice of the Peace? Where did God and the church fit into their
relationship? Were they willing to meet together with me to talk about these
and other crucial questions? Their responses determined my decision whether or
not I would agree to marry them.
Ministers do not have many rights of
office. Their ordination confers upon them the right to administer the
sacraments and to preach. The state grants them the authority to perform
marriages. Denominational polity defines the pastor’s role in church
governance. In my own denomination, for example, the pastor is the moderator of
the Session, which is the governing body of the local church. The limits of the
pastor’s authority are defined by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Within those constitutional constraints, pastors have two freedoms which they
zealously guard against the infringement of lay officers and members of the
church: the freedom to choose their own sermon topics, and the freedom to
decide whom they will marry. Conscientious ministers do not
take those freedoms lightly.
During the premarital sessions I would
have an opportunity to evaluate the couple’s readiness for and seriousness
about marriage, and if there appeared to be problems that needed to be worked
out, perhaps I would refer them to an appropriate professional counseling
service, if that seemed necessary, or to another pastor, or to a Justice of the
Peace. At one time ministers were supposed to consult the appropriate committee of Presbytery before marrying divorced persons. The decision to marry a couple was never automatic on my part.
It is important to understand,
therefore, that a denomination’s decision to approve same-sex marriages, does
not impose upon individual pastors the obligation to perform those marriages.
Some pastors are so adamantly opposed to the idea that they have led their
congregations to withdraw from the denomination.
The long-standing position of the
Presbyterian Church (USA) and its predecessor churches was that homosexual acts
were sinful. It was not homosexuality itself but the practice of it that was
considered sinful. The constitution therefore proscribed the ordination of
self-avowed, practicing homosexuals.
That proscription has been repeatedly
challenged over the past several decades, with those favoring the ordination of
homosexual persons gaining more support at successive meetings of the General
Assembly, until in 2010 the
General Assembly voted to amend rhe wording of The Book of Order to allow the
ordination of homosexual persons. That decision was upheld by a majority of the
Presbyteries and a year later the amendment was officially adopted.
In the meantime the push for the
approval of same sex marriages continued. At the biennial meeting of the
General Assembly in Pittsburgh in July, 2012, the commissioners by a narrow
vote of 338 to 308 rejected an amendment to define marriage as between “two
people.” The change of wording would have meant the church’s approval of same
sex marriage. It is inevitable that a similar amendment will be offered at the
next meeting of the General Assembly in 2014, and I predict that it will pass.
It will also require, of course, the approval of two thirds of the
Presbyteries, which it will likely receive.
If so, the ruling, while approving same
sex marriage, does not constrict the conscience of a pastor whose
interpretation of Scripture precludes his or her performing such a union. Yet
such pastors will have to take seriously their church’s guidance, as they
continue to wrestle with what for many has been an extremely difficult theological
issue.
It is true that some people may be
homophobic, but I have never appreciated the indiscriminate application of that
pejorative term to everyone who opposes same sex marriage. Not everyone who is
opposed to same sex marriage is homophobic. Some people oppose such unions on
religious grounds. Their understanding of the Scriptures proscribes what they
consider to be “unnatural relations,” to use the Apostle Paul’s expression
(Romans 1:26-27). To label them homophobic for being true to their religious convictions
is unfair and inappropriate.
In the meantime, a growing number of
states are approving same sex marriage. Given that reality, churches and
individuals who oppose such unions on religious grounds, need to recognize the distinction between marriage as a civil
right and holy matrimony as a sacrament or ordinance of the church. In my
opinion persons of the same gender who love each other and have committed
themselves to a monogamous relationship should be entitled to the same civil rights
as a heterosexual couple.
If a same sex couple for religious
reasons want to be married by a minister or rabbi in the context of a community
of faith, where they can exchange their vows “in the presence of God and these
witnesses,” then they need to find a church or synagogue where their union
would be welcomed and spiritually affirmed in a religious ceremony. Those
performing such marriages should be guided by the same criteria they employ in
counseling any couple who want to get married, and their decision to perform
the ceremony should have the same integrity, regardless of couple’s sexual
orientation.[9]
Of one thing I am convinced: monogamy
is far more acceptable in God’s sight than promiscuity, whether it be
homosexual or heterosexual. We must always be open to what the Holy Spirit is trying to teach
us. James Russell Lowell’s powerful hymn says it well: “New occasions teach new
duties; time makes ancient good uncouth; they must upward still and onward, who
would keep abreast of truth.”
And whatever one’s view may be on this
or any issue where human beings’ lives and well being are at stake, compassion
is more Godly than self-righteous legalism.
[1] The
United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
[2] The
Presbyterian Church in the United States
[3]
That’s not surprising considering that there were 14 Presbyterians, including
the one and only clergyman, John Witherspoon, among the signers of the
Declaration of Independence!
[4] The
General Assembly is the highest
judicatory, a national body of elected representatives from the local
presbyteries, ministers and elders, who meet biennially.
[5] The
Presbytery is a district judicatory, corresponding to an Episcopal diocese,
consisting of ministers and elders from the member congregations, who meet at
regularly scheduled times throughout the year.
[6] The
Session is the governing body of the local church, consisting of elders elected
by the congregation, with the Pastor serving as Moderator.
[7]For
the full wording see The Constitution of
the Presbyterian Church (USA) Part II, The Book of Order, Section F-1.03.
[8]The
italics are mine.
[9]
“More Light Presbyterians” is a growing network of pastors and lay people
within the PC(USA) who are committed to gender inclusiveness and equality. Their mission is stated as follows: Following the risen Christ, and seeking to
make the Church a true community of hospitality,
the mission of More Light Presbyterians is to work for the full participation
of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of faith in the life, ministry
and witness of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
No comments:
Post a Comment