wfn.org | Backers, foes of Amendment O weren't on the same page

[PCUSA.NEWS@ecunet.org]

Note #6457 from PCUSA NEWS to PRESBYNEWS:

22-March-2001
01101

Backers, foes of Amendment O weren't on the same page

"Swing" votes turned on questions of pastoral prerogative, not sexuality

by Evan Silverstein 
and John Filiatreau

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - In the 28 presbyteries considered "swing votes" in the
debate on Amendment O, speakers for and against the amendment talked apples
and oranges.

The "swing" presbyteries are those that in 1996 voted in favor of Amendment
B, which requires Presbyterian Church (USA) officers to practice "fidelity
within the covenant of marriage or chastity in singleness," but this year
refused to endorse O, which would have prevented PC(USA) ministers from
conducting "union ceremonies" for homosexual couples.

Proponents of Amendment O talked mainly about its intent - to overturn a
decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission that allows same-sex union
rites, as long as the unions aren't considered marriages and the ceremonies
don't resemble weddings.

Opponents of the amendment talked mostly about its potential "side effects,"
which they said might limit the authority of pastors and sessions to decide
how to meet their pastoral responsibilities.

As of March 13, the unofficial tally on Amendment O was 63 to 87. While the
voting will continue through April, the required majority of the
denomination's 173 presbyteries have voted no, killing the proposed
amendment of the PC(USA)'s Book of Order. Amendment B was approved five
years ago by a vote of 97 to 74.

Officials of the "swing" presbyteries said their commissioners' votes should
not be taken as an indication that they approve of same-sex union
ceremonies.

"It was the vagueness of it, and the breadth of it," said the Rev. Richard
Baldwin, executive presbyter of the Presbytery of Memphis, where the vote
was 70 to 62 against Amendment O. "The moment of decision for many was (when
a) minister got up and did a benediction, and then said: 'If you interpret
this amendment strictly, I won't be able to do benedictions at the end of
worship services. This is just too broad and too vague and too intrusive.'
And that was the moment, I think, when it was defeated.

"A number of conservative pastors voted against Amendment O for that very
reason, but are not changed in their minds about the theological position
with regard to same-sex marriages or gay and lesbian ordination."

The Rev. Harvey Jenkins, executive presbyter of the Presbytery of Florida,
where the vote was 38 to 45, said commissioners felt that Amendment O "would
infringe on other church ceremonies such as baptisms."

"It looked like it opened a whole lot of doors that would not be helpful for
the sake of the ministry of the church," Jenkins said, adding: "There will
be those that will be interpreting the fact that Amendment O (failed) as an
indication that there has been a major shift in the will of the
presbyteries, which I really don't think has happened. But that will be an
arguing point."

The Rev. Neil W. Brown, executive presbyter of North Central Iowa
Presbytery, said commissioners there were concerned that the amendment would
"forbid the counseling of the children of gay people, and have an effect on
other ceremonies, funerals or whatever."

"The people who favored the amendment denied that it had that intent," Brown
said, "but we had to deal with what the real words actually said."

The vote in Brown's presbytery was 37 to 56. The debate lasted only 30 or 40
minutes and wasn't especially passionate, he said. "In fact, except when we
are forced to, when the General Assembly sends these matters to us for a
decision, we don't talk much about issues of sexuality. It just isn't much
of a topic of conversation in our presbytery."

Elder Michael Lochow, executive of the Presbytery of Northern Plains, where
the vote was 33 to 36, said his commissioners discussed the amendment in
small groups and were told to spend the time in discussion rather than
debate. "There might have been a table or two where it turned out to be more
of a debate than a discussion," Lochow said, "but the conversation wasn't
heated at the (later) time when we had the debate. And the debate wasn't
extensive."

"The proponents of Amendment O seemed to be clearer about their reasons,"
said the Rev. Bart L. Brenner, executive of the Presbytery of the Missouri
River Valley. "They also had a narrower set of reasons. The other side was
concerned about the pastoral implications, and the effect on the
decision-making powers of the session."

"The truth is, our vote was close in both cases," Brenner added, referring
to the votes on amendments B and O. "This was not a drastic switch." He said
O was defeated in his presbytery by fewer than 10 votes.

Carolyn B. Stevens, executive of the Presbytery of Indian Nations, said the
debate there was "very orderly, very kind ... very studied," and ended in a
vote of 47 to 63. "It was a surprising margin, to me," she said. "I expected
our presbytery to have a closer vote."

"Very different aspects of the amendment were spoken about (in the debate),
especially on the against side," Stevens said, "while those who were in
favor seemed to be speaking to the homosexual issues. ... I believe the
framers of the amendment muddied the water with wording that was too
abstract and too broad to accomplish what I believe they set out to do."

Most of the presbytery spokespersons commented that the debate over
Amendment O was surprisingly civil and calm. The Rev. Joe Sheeler, executive
presbyter and stated clerk of the Presbytery of the Pines, said: "There was
no rancor at all. There were people who were clearly divided on opinions,
but it was a very genteel debate. There was a sensitivity that I have not
seen in debate on homosexuality in a number of years. The whole mood of the
debate was different. ... I do think there was a growing number of people
whose attitude on the homosexual question is changing."

"In our presbytery, despite the fact that we turned it down by 20 or 25
votes, our conservatives weren't all that upset," Sheeler added. "They voted
for it, they wanted it to pass, but nobody was upset."

That was not the case in the Presbytery of Memphis. "In this presbytery,
after Amendment O was defeated there was talk of bringing heresy charges
against those who supported the prevailing view ... because it was a
violation of, quote, 'obvious interpretation of scripture,'" Baldwin said.
"There were some very, very angry pastors who are very narrow in their
interpretation of scripture. ... There was talk that this summer was the
time to draw a line in the sand."

Many of the presbytery officials said they sensed a kind of weariness among
their commissioners. "Basically, they're tired of this coming up every
year," said Jenkins, of the Florida presbytery.  "And they're tired of what
it does when the secular press gets a-hold of it and reports that we've
overturned the ban on gay unions - which is not exactly what happened."

Harry D. Olthoff, interim presbyter of the Presbytery of Eastern Virginia,
where commissioners rejected Amendment O by a vote of 58 to 92, said he
detected weariness of another kind.

"I think it went down because of the shrillness of the voices wanting to
pass O," he said. "I think the shrillness of these voices is what people in
this presbytery are tired of. The accusatory nature of the debate, the lack
of charity, the absolute surety that they know the truth and everybody else
is an apostate."

In his presbytery, Olthoff said, "We're content to live with the tension.
.. We don't need things to be black or white. ... We can live with the
knowledge that there are people who really are unclear on this. That's OK,
to be unclear. We don't need to have the clarity forced upon us."

He added: "I think the reading in this presbytery is that there's been
enough focus on sexuality at GAs and in consuming the mind of the church,
that we need to put that aside and move on to some other parts of creation.
Sexuality is only one part of creation. We've put so much energy into that,
that we have ignored terrific issues around hunger and starvation and the
political process, and it's time to set this aside and just move on."

Many of the presbytery officials said they expect the same-sex union issue
and others having to do with sexuality to spark conflict during this year's
General Assembly in Louisville.

"I think that if the GA in Louisville takes a step to the left, it will
split the church," said Baldwin, of Memphis. "If there is an attempt to
remove Amendment B, I think the church will split."

"The real passion is going to be on the issue of ordination; that will be
the real hot potato," said Sheeler, of Pines Presbytery. "Now, whether the
vote on this will impact that, I honestly don't know."

Stevens, of the Presbytery of Indian Nations, said she's expecting
fireworks. "I think it's going to be horrendous," she said. "I have great
fear. I really dread the Assembly."

She said it isn't the sexuality issues that fill her with dread.

"I am beginning to believe that our obsession with sexuality may have been
partially a smokescreen for other issues," she said, "and I worry more about
other issues that may come to the forefront, especially our Christology - a
matter of our theology that is just as divisive as these issues of
sexuality."

As an example of a theological dispute that may prove divisive, Stevens
cited the recent controversy over a conference speaker's contention that God
may provide a way to salvation for non-Christians.

The Rev. Charles Doak, stated clerk of the Presbytery of the Pacific, where
the vote against Amendment O was 87 to 100, said his was the only presbytery
in Southern California that voted "no" on the measure.

"It was a bad piece of legislation," he said. "I think (the amendment's
wording) contributed to its defeat, because it allowed people to pick up the
arguments. It gave the 'no' people leverage. They picked up on the
complexities and the pastoral exclusions that would be indicated if this was
passed.

"A 13-vote margin in our presbytery ... I call it a landslide," Doak added.
"We've had some tie votes on these (sexual) matters. We're always right on
the edge - one, two, three votes one way or the other. I think the 'no'
people probably organized more this time than they had in the past. I think
that played a role. They got some people out, and made phone calls."

_______________________________________________
pcusaNews mailing list
pcusaNews@pcusa.org

To unsubscribe, go to this web address:
http://pcusa01.pcusa.org/mailman/listinfo/pcusanews