My journey with Amendment B, and why I'm glad it's over

It was the spring of 1997 when presbyteries across the country voted on what was then known as "Amendment B."  The language, which was eventually approved by a majority of presbyteries and ratified as part of our church's constitution, would do something that had never been done before: single out one issue by which those seeking to be ordained as ministers, elders or deacons would be measured:

Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

Meanwhile, as presbyteries were debating and voting across the country, I was blissfully lost in the seminary world as a third-year student, wrapping up my last semester.  My focus was on papers, final exams, and most importantly landing that all-important first call.  I was marginally aware of the politics taking place in the greater church I was preparing to serve, but I was told two things by reliable people.  First, this new amendment, if approved, would not affect me, since I was not gay.  Second, it was doubtful churches and presbytery examination committees would ask me anything about it in the call process, since the vote was still in progress.

The "reliable people" were wrong on both accounts.  The new amendment very much affected me as a life-long heterosexual, as its original authors chose not to use direct language like "gay" and "lesbian" in their exclusiveness.  Instead they opted for a convoluted "process-of-elimination" lingo that read more like an advanced calculus problem.  Single and married folks were unwittingly dragged into the mix.  "Chastity in singleness" - who still used the word "chastity," anyway?  Besides, it wasn't like I was planning on suddenly beginning a life of hedonism upon being ordained. So what was the point?

They were also wrong about the topic being off-limits in interviews.  I was meeting with a presbytery's Examination Committee, pursuing what would become my first call.  The meeting was going pretty much as I was told it would: pleasant conversations about theology, polity, what kind of pastor I'd be.  Near the end, though, a crotchety old man brought up the Amendment B vote that was making its way across the country.  This particular presbytery had already voted, I was informed, but how would I have voted if I had been a member there?  He practically had "litmus test" written on his nametag.  Thanks a lot, reliable seminary people. 

The "Fidelity and Chastity" amendment, as it's been called, has been with me for my entire time in ministry.  In fact, I guess we kind of entered the ministry together.  And while I've found a home for myself here, our denomination never got comfortable enough with Amendment B to let it move in to the guest room.  Critics have consistently pursued courses of action to have it overturned.  Supporters have held to it rigidly and threated a mass-exodus if removed.  The debate has brought out lots of the bad in the church: division, vitriol, mistrust.  Oddly enough, it's brought out a little of the good too: passion, commitment, a desire to seek God's will.  But mostly the bad.

There have been attempts to remove or replace the amendment in the fourteen years since, but all have failed.  Until this past Tuesday, May 10th.  That was when Twin Cities Presbytery in Minnesota became the 87th presbytery - a majority - to vote in favor of replacing Amendment B of 1997 with Amendment 10-A:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life. The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation 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. Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

You'll notice the language is quite different - and language matters. Gone are terms that shamelessly exposed our obsession with sex.  Instead we find authority being placed where it should've been all along - submission to "the Lordship of Jesus Christ" (you'll note that "Jesus" is notably absent from the former amendment).  Gone is language that limited and restricted how churches and presbyteries engage in the call process.  Instead, those agencies are fully empowered to more effectively do the work they're entrusted with. Gone is rhetoric that defined ordination standards in negative terms (who is not qualified).  And the obvious: gone is the air of exclusivity that has weighed down the church like a ball and chain.  Instead we find a more inclusive mindset regarding who can serve the church as an ordained minister, elder or deacon.

Now - it goes without saying that there will be some who won't welcome this change.  Human sexuality, for most folks, is one of those "dig-in-your-heels," "no compromise" kinds of issues.  There are very few fence-riders.  Already there have been threats of individuals, even entire churches, jumping ship and leaving the denomination.  These actions, if followed through on, would be ill-advised.

For one, it's not like they're suddenly going to start busing ordained gays and lesbians from some undisclosed location to churches all over the country.  This amendment does not force churches or presbyteries to call homosexual persons to ministry - it only removes the prohibition against it.  In essence it fully empowers the governing bodies of our denomination entrusted with calling and examining ordained individuals to do their job.  Does this mean some may still rule an individual unfit for ministry because of their sexual orientation?  Yes.  But it also enables those same bodies to call a person based on their complete gifts for ministry, sexual preference notwithstanding.  Either way, the decision is completely up to the church or presbytery who is meeting with this person and considering their ability to serve.

Besides, while a lot will change with Amendment 10-A, a lot won't.  And ironically, one of the things that won't change is the ordination of gays and lesbians!  For, as pointed out by my Presbyterian minister colleage in this blog post, we already have gays and lesbians serving as ministers, elders and deacons.  Every denomination does!  Presbyterians have been ordaining them for years, even during the tenure of Amendment B.  That's because in some instances the individual has remained silent about their orientation.  In others, those around them have engaged in a sort of ecclesiastical "Don't ask, don't tell" - because they understood the power and significance of a call to ministry.

And that, for me, is what it all boils down to; and why I personally welcome the change and the language of 10-A.  I hold very sacred the notion of a calling to ministry.  I know first-hand what it's like to receive that call; how it brews inside you over many years, how you catch glimpses of it at various points in your life.  It is part of who you are like the cells in your body or the breath in your lungs.  You can't escape it, you can't rationalize your way out of it.  It is who you are.  And to have a blanket denial of someone's call built into our church's constitution, where one issue is singled out over all others - well, that's never sat well with me.  Especially when it involves something that's also part of who a person is.  Just as one doesn't "choose" their sexual orientation, one doesn't "choose" to be called to ministry.  It chooses you. 

And so I welcome 10-A; not because I claim to know every nuance of God's will, but precisely because I don't. I welcome 10-A; not because I lack faith in the way our denomination discerns those who are called to ministry, but precisely because I have full confidence in it.

Still, I know this decision is painful for some, in the same way that the decision to keep the old language the past fourteen years was painful for others. I pray for those who are pained by this decision, and I hope we continue having respectful conversations about human sexuality.  I've posted this blog post on my church's website in hopes that it will clarify what this new amendment means - and doesn't mean - as a member of First Presbyterian Church and the PC(USA). 

And when it comes to those who are thinking of walking - well, I've thought and prayed a lot about this over the years, knowing this day would probably come.  And I think I've figured out what my response will be.  I won't try to talk them out of leaving, nor will I attempt to change what they think or believe.  I don't think either is the pastoral thing to do.

Instead I will simply ask for six months: a six-month moratorium on the decision to leave; six months to continue worshipping, serving and being an active part of our church together.  Six months of Sunday mornings and Wednesday nights, Bible studies and Sunday school, fellowship meals and missions.  I'll invite them to meet with me when those six months are over.  And if at that time they can honestly say they've felt a palapable change in our church as a result of 10-A, that our particular congregation is no longer witnessing to the resurrected Jesus Christ, then they will leave with my blessing.  If, however, they don't feel any different about our church, if they come to the conclusion that God is still God and the church continues to live out God's mission as it always has, then I will suggest that perhaps an amendment that changed ordination standards was not an amendment that destroyed the church.

This is a time of change for the church I love, and change is never easy.  There will always be those who will choose to hold on to their fears. I, for one, will hold on to hope - because our God is a God of outlandish hope.  I invite you to hold on to that hope with me too.

****************

(NOTE: Below is a message from Cynthia Bolbach, Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the PCUSA, about the ratification of Amendment 10-A. I encourage you to take the 3.26 to watch it.)

(VIDEO LINK HERE)

Comments

[Randy]

Awesome! I am completely in support of 10A. You gotta love a church body that isn't hiding from this issue. I know it is tough, but I feel this is the right thing to do. Thanks for trying to clarify the subject for everyone.

[Skip Greathouse]

Bravo. A well stated explanation of a needed change, in my humble opinion. In my walk through life I've known wonderful, caring folks that happened to be gay who should be ordained to serve. To exclude then because of their orientation always bothered me. Perhaps now we can begin to move beyond our fear and on with God's work.

[Beth]

Thank you for your thoughtful reflections. Very well said!

[Byron Wade]

Dude - excellent post! Truly, you are the MAN!!

[Andy Acton]

Well said Steve. Thank you for sharing this post. Although there have been a number of individual church goers who have left their churches and the denomination (to become UCC or otherwise) because of Amendment B...it's striking to me how most everyone who has disagreed the prohibition of ordination of gays and lesbians remained in the church for 14 years, while those who are steadfast against the ordination threaten heresy, schism, split, and are not willing it seems to try living with things for 6 months or more.

[Todd Harris]

Steve: After reading your thoughts I feel I must respond... in the spirit of having "respectful conversations". And while I am not a member of your congregation I was raised a Calvinist so perhaps I am granted some license.

I would like to address where you apparently stand on this issue. It appears to me from my read that you justify this decision, in part, based upon the premise that homosexuality is not a sin. It certainly isn't PC these days to declare a lifestyle an abomination but that is the way scripture describes it. These are not my words. These are the words we try to live our lives by everyday... as given to us as divinely inspired scripture in the case of much of the Bible or as literally from the fingertip of the Almighty should one hold as conservative and orthodox Jews do concerning the first 5 books of the old testament or Torah. It is my understanding from a theological perspective that sin is sin and without our living sacrifice, Jesus Christ, all of us would be unable to enter into his presence... this being symbolized by the tearing asunder of the great vale which separated the sanctum sanctorum from the rest of the Temple. The end result of sin is an inability to obtain salvation... whether that sin be homosexuality or something our mortal minds deem somehow less on the sin scale such as lying, coveting etc. What passes under the bridge without enough inspection is the thought that seems to be presented: that God made me who I am so isn't this somehow acceptable? We are all imperfect... whether that imperfection being a propensity to covet or to engage in a homosexual sex act. What God has given us is the ability to choose... the ability to accept the sacrifice of his son or to reject him tho we be prodded by the Holy Spirit. In its simplest sense it is the decision to love him or not to love him. We have been given free will for without the ability to choose love of Him is rendered meaningless. What I see in 10-A is a willingness to accept sin and if sin is sin in the eyes of God why not choose to ordain and thereby condone the activities of thieves, murderers, coveters, gluttons etc.? Of course, the key difference here is that yes while there are these sinners who are currently serving in the capacities you mention in your blog they do not have a sign around their neck which says, euphemistically ... hug me I am a (fill in whatever sin you choose).

I sin everyday Steve and the part of me that is God's despises it. He wishes better for me. I once heard a rabbi discussing the many laws orthodox Jews keep and whether they should be thought of as a yolk to bear... the same commandments that Paul said found him "blameless under the law". The rabbi said God gave them because he loved us. He gave them so as prevent hurt and drama in our lives. He gave us rules much as we give our own children rules to keep them out of trouble. And much like our own, sometimes rebellious children, we choose to ignore the rules. This is why, like Paul, we needed something more than the law of Moses. We needed Christ.

I have read, with much chagrin, the recent story of the couple who refuse to divulge the gender of their child even to close friends and grandparents. Opting instead to give the child the gender neutral name of "Storm" and allowing, at time of the child's own choosing, he/she to determine its own gender. 10-A is much the same. Just as the authority figures (the parents) have allowed the child, the one who most needs structure, the one who most needs to rules, to make it up as he/she goes along 10-A does the same by condoning what God has clearly declared is a sin. The end result will be angst, heartbreak, drama, trouble or as the Bible so aptly puts it (thereby allowing us to physically FEEL the consequences) "weeping and gnashing of teeth".

It is this type of failure on the part of authority that so threatens the very fabric of our society.

[Don McChesney]

Todd, you said it just right. Many of us in the orthodox Christian community see that this is painful for PCUSA on both sides of the issue (and it is evident in Cynthia Bolbach's message). But to me what is so sad about the decision is that it hurts PCUSA most of all.

To the extent that Christian churches proclaim the Truth as revealed in Scripture, they are by and large successful as organizations. This is because humanity is hurting and there is only one remedy for the pain: The Truth (Jesus Christ). Predictably, coming to Christ feels like taking medicine. It doesn't always taste like we want. But for those whom God calls, the desire to be healed always overcomes our resistance to the taste of the medicine. As ministers of the Gospel, all we have to do is speak the truth in love and stand ready to come alongside all who respond.

When Christian churches start to pick and choose what to accept in Scripture, this very well may spell the beginning of the end for the institution. If a church of Jesus Christ doesn't hold to His revealed Word, then what does it have to distinguish itself from the world? Remember Matthew 10:34. Our job is not to please people. Our job is to please God. He has told us what is pleasing to Him in His word.

We cannot go wrong by holding tight to God's Word and we will certainly go wrong by neglecting it.

Peace.