Hot-button Issue #1: Marriage

Ed. note: As we lead up to the General Assembly meeting in Detroit June 14-21, I will provide overviews and insights into some of the major issues coming before the Assembly. Rather than counting down the top ten as I have done in previous years, I have divided the issues into three categories: hot button issues, sleeper issues, and Trojan horses.  We are going to start right at the top of list.  Each "hot button" issue will get its own post; the others will be presented in groups.

This is the issue and the assembly that people have been anticipating (or dreading) since the adoption of Amendment 10-A. Given all the anticipation and the changes happening so quickly in American society, it is almost a foregone conclusion that this Assembly will do something about whether pastors should be permitted to perform same-sex weddings. Meanwhile, scores - perhaps hundreds - of congregations are poised to bolt from the denomination should the PCUSA deviate from their perception of what constitutes "biblical" marriage. (I have previously commented on this elsewhere.) 

There are seven different overtures coming before Committee 10 - Marriage Issues, on which they will make recommendations to the plenary body. 

10-01 (Presbytery of Lehigh) The most radical proposal of the lot, it invokes the historic separation of church and state to amend W-4.9001 to prohibit teaching elders and CREs from presiding over a legal civil marriage, and to separate the civil act of marriage from the blessing of a Christian covenant that would take place separately.

10-02 (Cascades, with 16 concurrences) would replace the text of the current W-4.9001 with a new text that addresses the practice of marriage in the church, with reference to “two people” and “the couple” rather than “a man and a woman.”

10-03 (Heartland, with 19 concurrences) follows the route of authoritative interpretation rather than constitutional amendment.  It provides for pastors to exercise freedom of conscience and pastoral discretion in deciding whether to marry any couple who may be legally wed. 

10-04 (East Iowa with 3 concurrences) also seeks to follow the authoritative interpretation route, grounding it more directly in pastoral discretion, with a provision that no teaching elder may be required to perform a marriage contrary to their conscience.

10-05 (Midwest Hanmi) This would propose an amendment to the Constitution that would add the following to the current language of W-4.9001: “For the purpose of God’s mission, presbyteries and sessions may define marriage as a civil contract between two persons within the boundary of the state law.” This is the least radical proposal that permits same-sex marriages, as it leaves the current “definitional” language of “a man and a woman” untouched.

10-06 (New Castle) would ask to rescind the 1991 authoritative interpretation that establishes the language of W-4.9001 as definitional, prescriptive, and exclusive. It is unclear as to whether it would succeed on its own in accomplishing the purpose of permitting same-sex weddings (in the absence of a replacement interpretation). However, it would be a clarifying addition to 10-03 and 10-04 should one of them be adopted.

10-07 (Eastern Korean) would establish a GA Task Force to bring recommendations to the 222^nd GA (2018). It would defer consideration of amendments and direct councils not to take action on same-gender marriage until the Assembly has received and acted on the Task Force recommendations.

Observations: More than any other issue, how the Assembly addresses same-sex marriage is likely to have the biggest impact on the peace and unity of the church. What is most surprising is the absence of any clearly conservative overture – one that would reaffirm our present definition of marriage. The abdication of legislative options by the right wing – not just on this issue, but several others too – is troubling and dangerous for the church. First, the church is best served when all perspectives are given fair consideration, and absent a conservative voice, there is the danger that the Assembly will not be truly deliberative or reflect the discernment of the whole church (F-3.0203 – cf. also footnote 6 which it paraphrases: “appeals may be carried from lower to higher governing bodies [councils], till they be finally decided by the collected wisdom and united voice of the whole Church.”)

Of all the proposed overtures, 10-05 (Midwest Hanmi) comes closest to my own recommendations as to how to address the issue. My own preference would have been to resolve the matter by proposing a constitutional amendment regarding pastoral conscience and discretion regarding the whole Directory for Worship. There are many provisions that are routinely disregarded in the worship life of particular communities.  Perhaps this can be addressed in the consideration of the proposed revision of the Directory for Worship (one of my “Trojan horse” issues). Any attempt to “open the door” to same-gender weddings in the church through authoritative interpretation will be regarded by a large portion of the church as an end run overreach by a rogue Assembly. While the definitional and binding nature of the words “a man and a woman” was established by authoritative interpretation (see 10-06), the issue is of such magnitude in the life of the church that it demands that it be discussed throughout the church. There are those who believe doing so would create unnecessary conflicts in presbyteries and sessions. I disagree. Presbyterians are at their best when they practice mutual discernment at all levels of the church.