Talking Past Each Other

Today I continued to monitor the Civil Unions and Marriage Issues Committee. This is something I’m doing for the Association of Stated Clerks – helping to produce an Amendment Guide to whatever Constitutional changes the Assembly may eventually recommend to the presbyteries.

In this post, I’m going to get a little personal in my comments on the work of the committee. Full disclosure: these comments reflect my own views and are not necessarily those of the Presbytery.

It saddened me to see the same pattern unfolding that I’ve seen at so many other General Assemblies: representatives of the two sides in the sexual-ethics debate earnestly talking past one another.

The conservatives, with unmistakable anger, bitterly accused their opponents of discarding certain individual verses of scripture. These verses, they contended, prove God’s plan for all ages for the proper ordering of human sexual relations.

Their next move was utterly predictable, based on earlier General Assembly debates: they threatened various cataclysmic outcomes that could ensue, should the Assembly allow for any other interpretation of these verses than their own.

Here are some comments made today by those opposing any change to the church’s definition of marriage:

“If you pass this, this denomination will just implode.”

“The General Assembly is one big homosexual party.”

“I don’t know if I could stay in this denomination if this measure got pushed through, and I know there are many churches that are right on the edge and ready to leave.”

Of course, these proof-texters have convinced themselves there’s no interpretation involved in their reading of the Bible. None whatsoever. What they have concluded, after reading the text, is what God says. Period.

Some also warned that any change in Presbyterian teaching about sexual ethics would put us seriously out of step with the rest of the ecumenical church, particularly the fast-growing churches of the Southern Hemisphere. This argument – while true – fails to acknowledge that, if change is going to come, it has to begin somewhere. Somebody, sometime has to be out of step with the pack, if the Holy Spirit is ever going to bring about something new.

The liberals, on the other hand – displaying a calm, conciliatory demeanor, in marked contrast to their opponents – typically roll out moving stories of people who yearn to benefit from the institution of marriage, but are currently excluded by the church’s definition of it. That's well and good, but I’m always dismayed at how few speakers on this side of the debate do the one thing that could maybe, possibly lead some of their opponents to at least think about changing their minds. They fail to explicitly cite scripture, crafting an argument largely based on the findings of modern social science and on personal experience. This makes them sitting ducks for the conservative counter-argument that liberals don't care about the Bible.

Today, speakers on the liberal side of the argument did a little better job of citing scripture than usual. One of them cited the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-39 (the early church’s acceptance of a member of a sexual minority). Another mentioned Jesus’ greatest commandment (“You shall love the Lord your God... and your neighbor as yourself”). Someone else alluded to the deep bonds of non-traditional family that united Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan. Others cited a few passages from the epistles, as well, that I didn't write down. That’s at least a start.

One conservative speaker after another came back to Matthew 19:4-5, in which Jesus cites Genesis 2: “a man shall leave father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” In his testimony in the open hearing, Alan Wisdom of Presbyterian Action for Faith and Freedom gave the most concise summation of this argument. He spoke of God “establishing marriage as the one-flesh union of the two created sexes.”

It’s always astounding to me to hear people present this verse as Jesus’ institution of marriage. That argument only works if they rip the verse completely out of context. One glance at the larger context shatters their argument into tiny pieces.

The larger context is that Jesus is teaching, here, not about marriage, but about divorce. Throughout the last century, the church struggled with how to apply this teaching to real human situations. Based on the “plain sense” of this passage – the very same plain-sense approach the conservatives urge us to apply to the line, “a man shall leave father and mother and be joined to his wife” – Jesus seems to be issuing an absolute prohibition against remarriage after divorce.

The problem for those traditionalists who cite Matthew 19:5 in support of the “one-man, one-woman” definition of marriage is that they themselves have extensively re-interpreted another part of this very same teaching, the part that deals with divorce. How can they justify re-interpreting “whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery,” while at the same time insisting on a traditional understanding of “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?” That inconsistency is the proverbial elephant in the living room of their argument.

The basis of the re-interpretation of Jesus’ divorce teaching, of course, is that the institution of divorce of which he’s speaking is not the same as divorce today. In Jesus’ day, a man could divorce his wife on a whim, for a reason as trivial as burning the dinner. More often than not, the divorced woman became, overnight, a social outcast. Unless her family of origin had mercy on her and took her in as a household servant, she had no means of support. She faced a stark choice between prostitution and starvation. With that social context in mind, Jesus is essentially saying to his disciples: “Any married man who follows me cannot abandon his wife to such a terrible fate.”

The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t face that problem of interpretation. Catholics still hold to the literal, plain-sense reading of Matthew 19:4-5. Consequently, that church continues to maintain a near-absolute prohibition of divorce – although pastoral compassion has forced them to open (for those who can afford the hefty fees, anyway) the rather sizable loophole of the annulment process. Through the annulment investigation, couples seeking remarriage after divorce can, after turning an arduous series of intellectual and theological back-flips, finally gain permission to be married in the church. Yet, they do so only by convincing the church that the earlier marriage was never valid in the first place (an awkward and pastorally insensitive ruling, if children are involved).

Would those Presbyterians who get so worked up over even the thought of a Presbyterian same-sex marriage really want to embrace the Roman Catholic prohibition of remarriage after divorce? Not likely. Yet, if their proof-texting argument is to remain logically consistent, that's the only course available to them.

We Presbyterians need to seriously engage these biblical texts, and not in a superficial, proof-texting way, either. We need to do it together, in community. Only then will we stop talking past each other.

Proposed Revised Definition of Marriage

The Civil Union and Marriage Issues Committee has just voted, 34-18-2, to recommended a series of amendments to the Book of Order that would remove references to "a man and a woman" from sections of the Directory for Worship dealing with marriage.

The action may be found here.

I'm posting this from my phone, and will have more to say later about the process in the committee that led up to this decision - but, it's kind of hard to do that from a smartphone, which is the only way I have, here in the committee room, of getting online.

Recommendation to Remove "Fidelity and Chastity" Paragraph

I just read a tweet from someone sitting in the Church Orders and Ministry Committee, reporting that the committee voted to recommend the replacement of G-6.0106b (the "fidelity and chastity" paragraph in the Book of Order) with new material that may be found here.

The new section would read:
"Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. 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-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates."

Tonight's Tweets

As a public service, I'm posting some tweets that have come in during the last few minutes to Twitter #ga219, reporting on actions taken by various Assembly committees. These come from a variety of people who have been sitting in the committee meeting rooms, so I can't vouch for their accuracy. By and large, though, I think we can trust them.

The most recent are listed first:

Committee 16 recommends extending Heidelberg Catechism Special Committee to GA 220 to cont. translation work.

Committee 16 recommends Belhar Confession to full assembly 43-11-1.

Committee 14 recommends approval of MRTI report, includes denouncing Caterpillar's profiting from non-peaceful use of its products in M.E.

Committee 12 recommends Report of Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union & Christian Marriage to full assembly 47-8-2.

Committee 4 recommends MGB Commission as amended by vote of 38-4-2. Commission actions will require 2/3 vote, not simple majority.

A Question of Privilege

The Assembly's Civil Unions and Marriage Issues Committee just voted, 15-40-1, not to substitute the Minority Report of the Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage for the Majority Report.

Just before that, a member of the Committee moved that the vote be taken by paper ballot. It's a debatable motion, but there was a surprising amount of debate on the motion to vote by ballot. The mover had expressed how it was, for her, a highly sensitive issue, so she would feel more comfortable voting "privately."

Several other speakers expressed regret that, after many hours of debate, some of their colleagues felt the need to vote in secret.

One member said she thinks that, if even one member wants to vote by paper ballot, the body should honor that request.

Another member expressed how important it was, to him, that all committee members should exercise "the courage of our convictions" and vote publicly.

The Committee voted, by a rather lopsided margin, not to vote by ballot.

This saddens me. It seems to me this committee failed to understand the spirit of Robert's Rules. The motion to vote by ballot is a "privileged motion." Robert's assigns it a high level of priority because it protects the rights of a minority.

For some committee members who are perfectly comfortable with voting by show of hands to impose that viewpoint on a minority who aren't is to trample on an important, protected minority right. It's fundamentally an act of incivility.

Were I the Moderator of the Committee, I would have explained to the members the reason behind privileged motions, and that it ought to be only for a mighty good reason that a member's request for such a small concession to personal privilege be denied.

It's possible to imagine a situation in which a request for a paper ballot could be a bad idea. For example, repeated requests for paper ballots could be used as a delaying tactic. I suppose that's why Robert's allows for a vote at all.

Yet, this was the first such request of the day. Surely this committee could have been more respectful of the proper request of one of its members.

Bone of My Bone, Flesh of My Flesh

Here’s a scriptural interpretation angle I hadn’t heard before – as much time as I’ve spent investigating the scripture passages typically cited as foundational to Christian marriage.

A member of the Assembly Committee asked the Special Committee to share where, in scripture, they find evidence permitting same-gender marriage. Surprisingly, one of the Special Committee members cited Genesis 2:23, in which Adam exclaims of Eve, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” – probably the passage most frequently cited by traditionalists. He did so by comparing it to Genesis 29:14, in which Laban says to his nephew, Jacob, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh!”

His point was that Laban’s use of the bone-and-flesh imagery in that other context indicates that the similar statement in Genesis 2 describes not marriage in particular, but family relationships in general. No one’s suggesting that the ancient Hebrews practiced same-gender marriage, but, by that reasoning, what Adam is celebrating is the quality of the bond that unites him and Eve, not its particular nature as a male-female relationship.

In modern parlance, Laban and Jacob share the same DNA (like other ancient peoples, the Hebrews might have said they share the same blood, which is much the same). When Adam says of Eve, “This at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh,” he is bringing Eve into the circle of family. That is one of the most beautiful features of marriage, but - if this take on the passage is correct - it’s not dependent on the male-female bond as such.

What God Has Joined Together

“Why are we here? We are here because, just like your families, we want the best for our children.”

Those were the words of David Wall, Presbyterian Certified Christian Educator, member of the administrative staff at Princeton Theological Seminary, partner in a same-gender couple – and father.

David told the General Assembly’s Civil Unions and Marriage Issues Committee of the daughter whom he and his partner, Bob, adopted as an infant, and who has now grown up to become a student at one of our Presbyterian colleges. He also told the committee how he and Bob recently got “unionized” according to New Jersey’s civil union law – or, he quipped, maybe the better word is “civilized.” That got a laugh.

David also spoke of how important it would be for him and his family, as Christians, to be not only unionized (or civilized), but actually married. He asked the committee to recommend that the Assembly adopt the majority report. That report actually takes no position on the question of same-sex marriage, but recommends further study of the issue, leaving the door open to change at some future time.

This was an open hearing time, with speakers pro and con. Sue Cyre, a longtime advocate of conservative causes, asked the committee to interpret Genesis 2 as a divine prescription of marriage between a man and a woman as normative for the human race. She urged the committee to support the minority report, which asks the Assembly to adopt a traditional statement defining marriage in just that way.

In the report of the Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage that followed, Clayton Allard spoke movingly of how the members of that deadlocked group finally realized they had lost sight of the forest for the trees. In holding rigidly to their individual positions, they risked doing damage to the unity of the church as the Body of Christ.

“While we may not like or appreciate the views of others,” he observed, “we have no right to tell God who belongs at the table. Someone once said, ‘Anyone who starts to burn books ends, eventually, in burning people.’”

A covenant statement included in the committee’s majority report quotes the famous line from the marriage ceremony: “What God has joined together, let no one separate.” It has a different sense, and a peculiar power, when applied to a church task force divided over the theological understanding of marriage.

Allard quoted Gamaliel in Acts 5:38-39, as he advised his fellow Pharisees to leave the new proponents of Christianity alone, “because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them – in that case you may even be found fighting against God!”

Is it possible, I wonder, that the conservatives who are so theologically dug-in on this issue can find their way to a place where they can exercise the magnanimity of Gamaliel? Can they allow sisters and brothers in the faith whose conscience leads them in a different direction to co-exist with them in the same body, the Body of Christ?

As another special committee member presented the majority report, she brought up the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia, in which the high court declared “a fundamental right to marry.” Loving v. Virginia was a “miscegenation” case – a word hardly ever heard anymore that refers to interracial marriage. The couple asking the Supreme Court for permission to marry was an interracial couple: one African-American, the other white. Now, 43 years later, we have a U.S. President who is the product of such a marriage – one that would have been considered illegal under the old Virginia statute. It’s easy to see how far we have come as a country, in a comparatively short time. No one would dream of challenging the legality of interracial marriage today – and that’s as it should be.

Will it likewise be the case that, 43 years from now, no one would dream of challenging the legitimacy of a Christian marriage between two people of the same gender?

What happens (or does not happen) at this General Assembly may be a part of the answer to that question.