Tuesday, October 7, 2014

On Marriage: A "No" Vote with a Very Heavy Heart

Since the General Assembly was gaveled to a close this summer, I have struggled with how I would cast my vote when it comes time for the Presbytery of Arkansas to vote on proposed amendment 14-F, the "Marriage Amendment" to the PC(USA) Book of Order.

Although I have not always been sympathetic with the tactics or the underlying theology of many "liberal" PC(USA) groups who have worked tirelessly for greater inclusion of LGBT Presbyterians in the life of the church, I am with them in the desire to see our church become a more faithful reflection of the radical inclusive love and grace of God in Christ.  We do that best by being a place where all of God's children are welcomed into the ministries and mission of the church.  Part of that welcome is into the covenant of marriage.

It is my fervent prayer that one day soon the denomination I love deeply which has nurtured, educated, and occasionally troubled me over the years will be a denomination that bears witness to the wideness of God's mercy and the boundlessness of God's love.

That is why it breaks my heart that when the time comes to vote on 14-F, I feel compelled to vote "no."

My objection to 14-F is not to its intent.  The intent is pure.  It is good.  And it is faithful.  I agree to the depths of my spirit with the intent of this proposed change to our constitution and I believe that what it hopes to accomplish is a faithful step for the church.  Unfortunately, the GA chose to take that step on a dangerous and slippery slope.

As it is presented to the presbyteries, 14-F represents an abrogation of the church's calling to bear witness to the Kingdom of God in the world.  That witness depends on one thing- the gospel of Jesus Christ.  It is the charge of the church to proclaim the gospel in all places and in all times, not merely in those where the world is ready to hear it.

14-F proposes to amend the liturgical practice of the church by allowing same-sex marriage to be celebrated without penalty or prejudice but only in those places where a civil authority has given its imprimatur.  In those places where the state is silent or has denied its consent, the church is constitutionally commanded to remain silent.

The fundamental question facing the church in 14-F is not, "Shall we allow same-sex marriages to be celebrated in the PC(USA)?"  The question is, "Shall we allow Caesar to define the boundaries of our proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ?"  Shall my pastoral discretion and the freedom of our Presbyterian church session be bound by the decisions of our state legislature with 2 of 135 members who are Presbyterians?  Or a Supreme Court with none?

Is the legislature competent to make that theological decision?

Is a court?

Defenders of 14-F argue that it was the best way to get a change made now.  On that point, they are likely correct.  A wholesale change would have been difficult to get passed at GA and likely impossible with the presbyteries.  Half-a-loaf, as the saying goes, is better than none at all.

However, this half-a-loaf is stale.

What other decisions shall we surrender to the state?  Shall Congress decide whether or not the church may speak against war?  Or corporate corruption?  Shall we put the preferential option for the poor up for majority vote?

The church must live in civil society and must, from time to time, be bound by its laws.  However, when those laws have the effect of defining the permissible boundaries within which the gospel may be proclaimed, the church has failed in its calling.  When the church conspires through constitutional provision to attempt to silence the witness of a whole portion of the church, the church has become little more than a fourth branch of the civil government.

If it is to live into its calling as the church of Jesus Christ, I firmly believe that the PC(USA) must change its stance on marriage to include same as well as opposite-gender couples.  To do that at the expense of the church's charge to proclaim the gospel fully despite the whimsy and caprice of the state leads away rather than toward that calling.

With a heavy heart, I will vote "no" on 14-F and pray that this is not the last word.

No comments:

Post a Comment