Fit to Serve: Standards for Ordination in the PC(USA) after 10-A (Part 2)

*Many thanks to those who sent messages asking if I am alright following this long span between the first and second installments of this exploration of ordination standards.  I have been down with a bout of pneumonia for a few weeks, but I am back on my feet and ready to stir the pot!

The first post of this series set the question before us regarding ordination in the PC(USA).  That question is:

Under the current constitution, does the PC(USA) have any standards of behavior for those seeking or in ordained offices in the church?

The short answer demonstrated in the first post is that, yes there are indeed standards for ordered ministry in the church.  Whether those standards are “standards of behavior” sought by some in the church is a different question.  But the accusation that there are somehow no standards is on its face a falsehood.

In this second installment I turn to the role of scripture and confessions.  All those ordained or installed to office in the PC(USA) affirm that they acknowledge scripture “to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal and God’s Word to you” and “the essential tenants of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do.”  Affirmative answers to these two questions (the second and third ordination vows) are an absolute requirement for ordination. 

So what does it mean to hold these two vows concerning scripture and confession?

Perhaps a good place to start is to observe what is not said in these two vows.  Scripture is not referred to as infallible, inerrant or without error.  In the Reformed tradition, scripture is not a substitute for history or even an all-inclusive “to-do” manual for virtuous living.  It is instead the “unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ” the true Word in whom we find life, grace and the love of God.  This second ordination vow binds the ordained to understand the fullness of scripture as the exposition of God’s work in the world in the person of Jesus Christ. 

The third vow, concerning the confessions, is more difficult to parse.  Although it includes the phrase “essential tenants” of the Reformed faith, the church has consistently held over the last century that no such list may rightly be made.  To take certain ideas as “essential” is to lift those above all others as though the church in any age can know, exhaustively, what belief is essential and what is nonessential.  Keeping with the centuries old Reformed tradition of allowing the Spirit to work as it will in each generation of the church, the church has resisted the temptation to hash out a set list of essentials.  This has been a source of anxiety for some in the church, but it is in keeping with our tradition.  What is clear is that no essential list exists and there is no implication in this vow that the ordained will subscribe to any such list.

That these two vows do not express a rigid framework of belief and practice is at the root of much of our current debate over ordination and the perception of some that there are no standards any longer. 

In addition to resisting the making of such a list of standards on a national level, the church has also indicated that the making a list of essentials by presbyteries or congregations is contrary to the constitution.  Each individual must be judged on a case by case basis.  How, then, might scripture and confession be tools for examining the suitability of an individual for ordination if there is no structured framework clearly delineating what behavior is in and what is outside the bounds?

Because the question of human sexuality is such a loaded topic and one that causes many in the church to shut out any contrary argument, I propose considering this question in light of another, albeit smaller, point of disagreement among many in the church: corporal punishment.  Although not as emotionally charged, it is similar in three important ways.  First, it is a matter on which the church is, as evidenced by GA votes, mostly evenly divided.  Second, it is a matter of conflict in biblical interpretation.  And third, it is a matter on which the church has taken a stand, but has not included as a matter of constitutional mandate.

At GA this summer, commissioners were asked to consider a piece of business concerning a position for the PC(USA) on the issue of corporal punishment of children.  The assembly voted 334-306-9 in favor of the resolution opposing spanking and paddling children.   The vote and the lengthy floor debate showed deeply rooted feelings on both sides of the issue.  Those feelings were rooted in faithful interpretations of scripture.  For some, scripture is clear in its allowance for parent’s to responsibly punish their children including by spanking (Prov. 13:24)  For others, spanking or paddling a child is offensive to scripture based on Jesus’ preferential treatment of children and his charge that we care for them.  How, this reasoning goes, can you simultaneously care for and strike a child?  Both sides of this argument found purchase for their position in scripture and both argued from the perspective of faithfulness and a sense of the witness of scripture.

In the end, the GA voted to issue a statement condemning, on biblical and theological grounds, the practice of corporal punishment.  What then is to be done with a candidate for ministry who will not unequivocally state that s/he will not ever spank their child?  How is that person to be judged? The GA has made a position known, but has not made adherence to a set practice mandatory for ordination or installation.  What is to be done with this candidate in this circumstance?

The answer is found, I believe, in the very nuance that so frequently frustrates many on the issue of human sexuality.  If that candidate says, “if my child misbehaves and I believe it is the right action, yes, I would spank my child,” that person has articulated a position that is counter to a statement of the church.  Is that disqualifying?  Certainly not.  A candidate’s claiming of a position that is counter to an “official” position of the church but not contrary to his or her vows of ordination is not disqualifying.  What if that same person claimed that it is morally acceptable to beat their children to ensure their good behavior?  There is no specific provision of the constitution that prohibits child-beaters from being ordained.  I cannot imagine that there is a presbytery or congregation in the PC(USA) that would even entertain the idea of ordaining that person.

The behavior speaks to its underlying virtue or, in the latter case, lack thereof.  The behavioral standard is not to do or refrain from doing a particular thing, but whether or not that action points toward a life of faithful virtue lived in response to the word of God. 

In the end, the question of what behavior is and is not acceptable is not something that can be easily articulated or codified.  Virtuous living is slippery and resists easy definition.  Still, to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, we know it when we see it.[i]  I believe that a parent striking a child is counter to Jesus’ command to care for children.  But that does not mean that I can discount the fullness of the life of a person who disagrees with that position.  My reading of scripture and the confessions leads me to one conclusion while someone else may be led to another one.  That the two can exist together is not a sign of weak biblical interpretation but a sign that none of us can lay claim to the fullness of the witness of scripture or declare once and for all that there is but one interpretation valid for the church.

The vows concerning scripture and confessions lead us to consider how we live in light of expansive witness to Jesus Christ.  The shape and form of what may rightly be called a virtuous life or a life in which behavior is consistent with the witness of scripture and confessions may take many forms.  The challenge for the church is to recognize that there may be more than one way show, in our living, love for and obedience to God. 

---

[i] Stewart famously said of pornography, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…”  Jacobellis vs. Ohio 378 U.S. 104 (1964)

Fit to Serve: Standards for Ordination in the PC(USA) after 10-A (Part 1a)

A good question was raised by a reader regarding the definition of "standard" I offered in my first post. 

A standard is indeed a measure of some kind set by an authority (Websters 3rd and 4th definitions of "n. standard").  There is an important distinction between standard as measure of something concrete and measure of human quality, behavior or qualification.  In terms of physical characteristics (weight, distance, etc.) a standard is a numerically quantifiable standard. 

Standards of behavior or expectation are set not by absolute measure but by custom and they are gauged qualitatively rather than quantifyably.  For example, is it possible to measure faith in Jesus Christ in quantifiable terms the way a pound of sugar or a foot of rope can be measured?

Standards, when applied to human behavior or activity or knowledge are necessarily qualitative rather than quantifiable.

Additionally, a Reformed understanding of total human depravity makes any standard necessarily aspirational. To say that standards of ordained office are purely quantifiable matters rather than aspirational models and examples requires a non-Reformed understanding of ordination as setting above or apart from normal human sinfulness and depravity.  Our inability to escape our sinfulness is not abated by ordination.

The understanding of human standards as aspirational is rooted firmly in Augustine's City of God as well as the Confessions and affirmed in Calvin's Institutes.  To what degree that aspirational nature plays out is certainly up for debate as is the degree of variance from the aspirtional norm is to be allowed. 

That standards of human behavior are indeed aspirational in nature is Reformed both theologically and ecclesiologically.

Fit to Serve: Standards for Ordination in the PC(USA) after 10-A (Part 1)

In 2011, the PC(USA) removed language from the Book of Order (part of the constitution) that limited ordained service in the church to those who observed “chastity in singleness or fidelity in the covenant between a man and a woman.”  These words did not have a long history in the church having been added in 1997 they were less than 15 years old when they were struck.  Since their removal a rallying cry for some in the church is that the PC(USA) no longer has any standards for ordained service. 

This is the first of a series of entries designed to answer that charge and to outline what one PC(USA) pastor understands as the standards for ordained service in the church.  I do not pretend to speak for the PC(USA), the synod or presbytery under whose jurisdiction I work or the two wonderful churches I serve.  It is just my perspective and I invite responses in the hope of getting a larger conversation going.  For this first entry, I want to try to set some context for how I understand the discussion. 

Words matter and often we use the same words to mean very different things.  This is a short lexicon sharing how I mean certain words and phrases common in conversation and debate on this issue.  I do not claim to have authority to define them for the church, rather I define them the way I will use them in this context.

Standards: Standards are not rules.  Standards are norms or expectations within the community and placed on those in different roles.  For example, it is a rule (or law) that the President of the United States be a citizen, it is a standard that they exhibit the ability to lead.  It is the responsibility of the discerning (ordaining) body to determine suitability within the standards.

The Authority of Scripture: By this I mean to express a Reformed understanding that scripture is necessary, sufficient and accommodating.  With Calvin, I believe that scripture is necessary as a means to comprehending more fully the love and character of God.  It is sufficient for this task needing neither doctrine nor human authority to shore it up.  And it is accommodating to its time.  Scripture often assumes a particular world view.  With Calvin, I recognize that accepting the authority of scripture does not necessitate accepting its worldview or statements of fact that conflict with emerging human knowledge (the shape of the world, the movement of the stars, the necessity of striking a child, etc.)

Human Sexuality: Human sexuality is about more than sex.  It is a term used to describe the various forms of intimate expression between two people.  Being GLBTQ is about far more than just what happens in the bedroom just as being heterosexual is about more than physical sexual contact.  Human sexuality is, therefore, a part of our created-ness and is subject to both the ordering of God and the stain of sin.

Manner of Life: As this language remains untested in the courts and councils of the church, I do not claim to speak authoritatively for the Book of Order in defining this term.  I take it to mean the fullness of an individual life.  To assess the “manner of life” of an individual is to take into account the fullness of that life- professional, emotional, physical and spiritual- and not just bits and pieces to satisfy the question du jour.  It is also not a term meant to anticipate an ideal “manner of life” as a perfect or sinless life.  “We all sin and fall short of the glory of God.” 

With this lexicon in mind, we come to the question.  In a recent back and forth posting on the Presbyterian Layman website, a pastor from the west coast and I got into a discussion (to be kind) about whether or not the PC(USA) has any sexual standards or standards at all for its ordained offices.  It became clear that in addition to having different perspectives on what is and is not ethical or in bounds, we had a fundamental disagreement on framing the question for the discussion.  I propose framing the question for this series of posts as follows:

Under the current constitution, does the PC(USA) have any standards of behavior for those seeking or in ordained offices in the church?

I have chosen this formulation of the question for two reasons.  First, by referring to the “constitution” rather than the Book of Order alone the role of the Book of Confessions is part of the conversation.  This was a matter of contention at the 220^th General Assembly and within the church.  Second, I consciously chose to refer to “behavior” rather than “sexual behavior” because the current language does not elevate any category of behavior above others for scrutiny.  Sexual behavior will necessarily be a part of that discussion; however the boundaries of a discussion about standards of behavior for ordained persons cannot be limited to sexual behavior.

What are the standards for ordination to the offices of Deacon, Ruling and Teaching Elder?

In its advisory opinion #24, the Office of Constitutional Services in the Office of the General Assembly answered this question and referred to the affirmations made at the time of ordination and installation.  These standards include, but are not limited to:

·         Seeking to follow and be obedient to the Lord Jesus Christ

·         Accepting the Scriptures to be the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ and God’s Word

·         Being guided by the confessions

·         Governed by the polity of the PC(USA)

·         Furthering the peace, unity and purity of the church

·         and Showing the love and justice of Jesus Christ

Specific affirmations according to office include:

·         Teaching Elders- proclaim the Good News in Word and Sacrament; teach the faith and care for the people; be active in government and discipline; serve in councils of the church

·         Ruling Elders- watch over the people, provide for worship, nurture and service; be active in government and discipline; serve in councils of the church

·         Deacons- teach charity; urge concern and direct help of the friendless and those in need. 

The first fundamental question before an ordaining council is whether or not the individual being examined has the capacity to both answer the questions of ordination in the affirmative and live a life that reflects these affirmations.

However, that is not the only question before the ordaining council. And this is where some of those who claim that there are no longer any standards for ordained service misread our polity.  The relevant text in the Book of Order is found in the third sentence of G-2.0104b which reads, “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.”  The responsibility to assess the fullness of the candidate’s manner of life is still the responsibility of the ordaining council.  It is not only appropriate to examine the fullness of the candidate's life, it is a requirement (the word shall applies to both the main object "a determination" and the admonition "not be limited to.")  It is mandated that councils examine the ability of the candidate to live into and up to the questions for ordination AND that they not limit the examination to that narrow scope.

Additionally, the source of the standards is named in this paragraph.  The standards of ordained service are first and foremost a reflection of our desire to submit joyfully to Christ.  The application of those standards is guided by the Scriptures and confessions.  Under this model, Scripture and confessions are tools for guidance in the ordaining council’s discernment but it is ultimately joyful submission to Jesus Christ that is determinative. 

To say that there are “no standards” for ordained service is not factually accurate.  There are indeed standards.  On its face, that should answer the question posed above, however the concern of some in the church regarding standards for ordination goes beyond a simple yes or no.  Beneath the surface of that yes/no question is another.  How, then, do we apply them?

In the next installment of this series, I turn to the question of scripture and confessions in the application of ordination standards.  What does it mean to be “guided by Scripture and the confessions?"

A Lack of Trust in the Trust Clause

In the wake of the 220^th GA, much has been reported through the more conservative Presbyterian press and blogosphere about the GA’s action (or inaction) on matters referring to property ownership.  The Book of Order under which all churches are subject in our polity is clear that all property held by congregations is held in trust for the PC(USA) and its ministries in the world.  The exact wording is found in G-4.0203 and 04.

The 220^th GA considered overtures this summer that would have changed that portion of the constitution to provide for relief of conscience for congregations that chose to disaffiliate from the PC(USA) and to allow those churches to depart with their property.  The GA chose to maintain the language as it is currently written.

So what is the big deal here?  There are really two issues at stake.  The first is the theological underpinning of our constitution.  We are a community of connection and covenant and the underlying theology of our property polity reflects that conviction.  The second issue is a practical one.   We are in a time of transition in the church and what was once a very rare issue has become somewhat more common, though not nearly so much as some commentators would have you believe.  The trust clause language has become, in some cases, an issue between councils and congregations wishing to depart for other denominations. 

Addressing the issues backward (the practical and then the theological), the practical issue at hand is an important one.  While it is important that we respect our polity, there is a pastoral consideration to be made here too.  Some congregations have discerned a need to move on to other places and there is no single process in place to allow them to take their property absent the consent of the presbytery.  In some places, the presbytery has worked well with its congregations in other places the process has been more adversarial.  So why not get rid of the trust clause or insert a provision for congregations to exercise their conscience and leave with it? 

Because it keeps us all engaged with one another and prevents spur of the moment division in the church and it protects those who may want to remain.  By restricting the ability of congregations to just up and leave the property clause ensures that some measure of consultation will happen between churches and presbyteries before a congregation makes such a drastic step.  Other provisions of the Book of Order require the presbytery to engage churches in this position and to determine if a) it is in the best interest of the church to make such a move and b) whether or not there is a significant enough minority wishing to remain in the PC(USA) to constitute a continuation of the church.  Together these provisions ensure that departure is not based on rashness or mere majority rules but by a process of engagement between congregation and presbytery.  Whether or not that is a healthy or helpful process is up to the parties, but that it happens is written into our polity for a reason.

Beyond the practical, though, there is the theological reason for the property clause in our constitution.   We are a connectional church and the many parts are not discrete from one another.  The ministry of the congregation is a part of the ministry of the presbytery.  The trust clause in our constitution embodies this principle.  That with which we are entrusted is not our own, rather it belongs to Christ’s church.  To eliminate the trust language may satisfy a few angry voices, but it would undermine the visible witness of the church as greater than merely the sum of its parts.  Each congregation is a part of a greater whole.  The same principle underlies our polity for church councils.  Each council is the visible representation of the unity of its member councils or churches. 

That property is at the heart of so much of our denominational debate today should give us pause.  At time it feels as though we are fighting about property to avoid the real questions before us about how we might learn to live together united in Christ.  Still, the property issue persists. 

Are those who want to keep their property fighting the good fight for principle or just trying to keep a valuable asset?  Is the denomination insisting on the trust clause because it is one visible representation of our connectionalism or is it merely trying to stave off departures?  I do not pretend to know the answers to those questions.  But until we an answer those with some measure of clarity and theological certainty, the 220^th GA was correct to leave the status quo alone. 

Why I Still Believe In Sin

I had a shocking conversation today with a person I truly respect.  This is a person whose deep faith and thoughtful understanding of theology have been a source of help to me on more than one occasion in my ministry.  Although I have this person's permission to use their name, I will leave that to his/her discretion.

We were speaking on the phone about some recent articles about church and public perceptions of religion.  As so often happens, the conversation turned to the question of sin and its place in our theology, our world and the ministry of the church.  We had not been talking long when my friend said, "I'm not sure I really believe in sin anymore."  Now this is a person who, following an earlier crisis in faith, left the daily life of ministry to pursue other work in service to the church. S/he did not feel that it was possible to continue in parish ministry while walking that particular difficult spiritual path.  This new revelation, though, came as a shock.  "I'm not sure I really believe in sin anymore."

Uncharacteristically, I was at a loss of words.  Luckily the silence was filled by some explanation of that revelation.  My friend has been struggling in recent years with the divisions in the church over the ways sin has been understood in recent controversies in the church. "Sin," my friend said, "is just a weapon to beat up on some people."  In other words, our language of sin has, my friend thinks, become so wrapped up in declaring misdeeds by others as sinful that we have lost any understanding of sin as part of the universal human condition. 

There is certainly some truth to that idea.  We do use the language of sin more to accuse others than to describe us all.  I cannot deny that sin has morphed from a description of the human condition to a new weapon in the arsenal of intramural ecclesiastical debates.  That is certainly true.

But I cannot get there with my friend and say I no longer believe in sin.  In fact, I think I believe in sin more now as a 42yo than I did when I was knee deep in systematic theology as a 28yo seminarian.  I believe in sin so much more now because I see it, feel it and, if I am honest, live it every day.  Whether it is failing to be a good neighbor, putting the god of job security before the God of bold proclamation or just being unreasonably judgmental of the driving abilities of the person waiting on the light to turn a particular shade of green before going, I am a sinner and I fall short of the glory of God.

It is important that we who are part of the church get comfortable speaking about sin and our own sin in particular.  Other than the love of God for the world that overcomes sin, there is no other unifying human experience like our sin itself. 

When we speak of sin in terms of their sin or that person's sin, we turn that universal human condition into an us vs. them equation when in fact it is us vs. sin.  Sin is not a label made to be slapped on the unpopular or the unliked.  It is not a weapon to beat and belittle those with whom we may disagree.  Scripture is clear, we ALL sin and fall short of the glory of God.  And, for we Presbyterians, the Reformed tradition is clear that there is not a hierarchy of sins that sets some people above or below others.  We are all sinful and we are all in need of God's grace.  End of story.

Perhaps part of the reason people are losing faith in organized religion (liberal, progressive, conservative and all) is that we do an increasingly poor job of speaking our own language.  When sin is misrepresented in conservative circles as something that "they" have and "we" are forgiven for, the church becomes a stereotypical closed society when its real purpose is to be the welcoming community of the saving Christ.  When, in more liberal circles, sin becomes little but an antiquated idea, quaint but hardly relevant, we lose one of the central parts of our own nature revealed in history and an understanding of the root cause of much human suffering.

I am a sinner and so are you and we live in a sinful world.  Let's stop playing the "your sin is worse than my sin game" and get on with the work of addressing the impact our sin has on our world. 

Language Matters Part 3: I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

I am no film critic, but in my humble opinion “The Princess Bride” is one of the greatest movies ever made.  It is funny, sad, heroic, tragic, suspenseful and romantic all at the same time.  And it has some of the most memorable characters in film.  Vizzinni (Wallace Shawn) is the leader of the criminal trio hired by the Prince to capture and get rid of Princess Buttercup.  Whenever Vizzinni’s brilliance is challenged or he faces defeat, he cries out “inconceivable!”    After a few of these outbursts, one of his criminal companions, Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin) says, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.

In recent weeks both while watching the 220^th GA and reading accounts of it, I find myself having some Inigo Montoya moments.  I do not think the words some people are using mean what they think they mean.  So here is a short lexicon of misused theological words regarding the 220^th GA.

Grace: Many speakers at GA urged the commissioners to show “grace” toward those who wanted to act out of conscience by opting out of the Board of Pensions or form non-geographic presbyteries with like-minded churches or take some other action that may run contrary to denominational policy or polity.  Grace, it was implied, is about letting people do things the way they want to do them without consequences.  

I do not think that word means what they think it means.

Grace does not mean giving you your way no matter what.  Grace is also not one sided.  Many of those who are calling on the denomination to act with grace toward congregations that wish to leave with property or pastors who refuse to abide by denominational requirements that they not categorically exclude anyone from consideration from office are the same people who have been baying for blood from those who felt their conscience violated by our old language of exclusion for ordination and our current language regarding marriage.  If grace is allowing people to do as they please, where was the grace for Scott Anderson or Lisa Larges?

Grace is not a get out of consequences free card you can demand because you do not like being a minority voice.  I wonder where these voices demanding “grace” were when the reputation and integrity of the vice-moderator elect were being attacked because she acted in conscience in a way disapproved of by some?

Apostate: More than one commentator inside and outside the PC(USA) has referred to this GA and to the denomination as a whole as “apostate.”  The reasoning behind most of these accusations is that the PC(USA) has departed from one very specific stance on scripture in terms of human sexuality. 

Again, I do not think that word means what they think it means.

To be apostate, in a theological sense, means to stand apart from God.  To call the PC(USA) apostate is to say that the church has wholly stood apart from God and declared itself no longer defined by its calling by God in the world.  To call this accusation hyperbole does not even scratch the surface.  Just because YOU do not agree with a stance the church takes does not mean that you somehow become the mouthpiece of God.  Say that you disagree.  Say that the church has become apostate to YOUR particular worldview.  But save the righteous indignation and the sweeping pronouncements as though any of us can fully know the mind and will of God. 

The men and women who gave their time and prayerful discernment to the 220th GA are not apostates they are discipiles and deserving of our thanks.

Integrity: Many PC(USA) leaders and others (myself include) have had their integrity questioned recently because of stances taken on divisive issues.   These questions of integrity occasionally have to do with a particular action, but most of them seem to stem from purely ad hominem attacks. 

Yet again, I do not think…well, you know.

An individual’s integrity is not based on whether or not someone else agrees with them.  The people who have attacked my integrity have never met me and know nothing about my ministry or character.  What they know is what they have read on my blog or in letters to the editor and from that they have determined that I lack integrity.  No, what I lack is an opinion they like.  Big difference. 

What is happening in the PC(USA) is, for lack of a more elegant term, the FOX-ification of the church.   Just because you disagree with something does not mean that you get to make up your own facts (like FOX and others tend to do).  Case in point, a headline on the Presbyterian Layman today read, “Turns Out 70% of GA Commissioners Aren’t Really Presbyterian.”  Really?  70% aren’t Presbyterian?  In truth, the headline linked to a blog that claimed that the 70% who voted for a particular ruling from the moderator with which the blog writer disagreed were not Presbyterian.  Being Presbyterian depends on having an opinion this guy likes?

We are dealing with big issues and serious matters of the faith and we need vigorous debate and discussion in the church to find our way forward.   The words we use in that debate matter and the church deserves better than this sort of nonsense.

Language Matters Part 2: The Sex Talk Edition

There are some things in life that are inevitable.  The day you wash your car, the drought ends.  The session agenda that looks mercifully short always hides controversy that runs long.  The IRS will always say I did my math wrong.  And every time the issue of human sexuality comes up at GA, someone will play the bestiality card. 

One of the favored phrases of those who oppose full inclusion of GLBTQ Presbyterians in the ordered ministries of the church is “sexual brokenness.”  Used to refer to individual lives and the contemporary world, the term “sexual brokenness” is an important one to our conversation.  Unfortunately it has been hijacked by the hyperbole of shock theology. 

It is beyond the pale to refer to faithful GLBTQ Presbyterians as the moral equivalent of sexual predators, pedophiles, etc.  Yet that is where the debate too often ends.  Fear that anything other than heterosexual relationships will cause the fabric of the universe to come unraveled.  These unhinged claims that acceptance of GLBTQ relationships will cast the church down a slippery slope toward horrors that would make the writers of Leviticus blush drown out any other arguments.

There is indeed sexual brokenness in our world, but what is broken is not loving same-gender relationships.  It is not the commitment to monogamy by two people who intend to spend their lives together.  In truth, that is evidence of sexual wholeness.   

What is broken in our world is the alarmingly high rates of frequent sexual activity and sexually transmitted disease among early and even pre-teens.  It is the devastating reality of human trafficking for the sex trade.  It is the reduction of human sexuality to a recreational diversion and the demeaning of God’s good creation.  That is sexual brokenness and that is where the church’s voice needs to be. 

We need to use our language with care and with prophetic vision to expose the real places of abuse, neglect, manipulation and exploitation in the world.  We need to use our language to speak for those who have no voice and yearn for justice.

Before we can do that, our language of human sexuality needs to move beyond the “you are a hater” or “you don’t love the bible” rhetoric.  Those who want to have a serious conversation about sexual brokenness need to move beyond the “ick factor” in response to GLBTQ relationships and begin to engage real brokenness. 

We need to recognize that our endless debates on one narrow question are distracting us from the world’s real needs.  If we learned anything at this GA, it is that the overwhelming perspective of the next generation (articulated so well by the YAADs) on matters of justice and faith goes far beyond our generations old debates on human sexuality.  They have shared their prophetic voice with us and we do well do heed it. 

Yes there is brokenness in our world, but it is not the fault of faithful GLBTQ people.  But as long as “sexual brokenness” means simply “you’re gay,” we will not be able to move on to issues of sexual exploitation and manipulation that are true signs of brokenness in this world.