January 2001

 

Newport Beach, California

Calendar of Upcoming Events

Calendar

January 21; 1:00 PM, Library*

Meeting of the Los Ranchos Chapter

February 24

Lazarus Project Banquet

(*St. Mark Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach. Visit http://www.stmarkpresbyterian.org/
service.htm or call 949-644-1341 for directions.)

dollar sign

Financial Report

January 1, 2001
Balance on Hand: $306.00

Local Chapter News

We will be gathering at St. Mark on January 21, 2001 to discuss our chapter's future for this coming year. If you have an opinion, please attend.

On Thursday, January 18th, our ally Covenant Network will be having a discussion in the St. Mark Social Hall from 1:30 to 3:00 PM. More Light members and friends are welcome.

Chapter members are also encouraged to attend the Lazarus Project Banquet on February 24, 2001 at the University Club in Pasadena. William P. Thompson is this year's awardee. Contact Linda A. Malcor (Legend@malcor.com) for more details.

Rainbow Ribbon

Los Ranchos Presbytery Issues

Amendment O, which would ban same-sex unions in the PC(USA) has been declared a "controversial issue" by the Presbytery Council. This means that the Presbytery's guidelines for dealing with controversial issues are in effect. Amendment O goes before Los Ranchos Presbytery for a first reading on January 20, 2001. Following the Presbytery meeting, there will be an educational event on the amendment that voting members of Los Ranchos Presbytery are encouraged to attend. Two other educational events will be held (one in North Orange County and the other in South County) prior to the March 17th second reading. Voting members of Presbytery, you will be receiving the dates, times and locations of the educational events in your Presbytery packets. Please try to attend at least one. The vote on Amendment O will take place on March 17, 2001. See the article below for the pro and con arguments concerning this amendment.

Articles or opinion pieces written by group members are welcome. Please send submissions to Linda Malcor.

Amendment O

by Linda A. Malcor

On Adding New Section W-4.9007 Prohibiting Same-Sex Unions

Beginning this month, Los Ranchos Presbytery will consider whether or not to recommend adding Amendment O to our Book of Order. The text of this amendment reads:

W-4.9007 Scripture and our Confessions teach that God's intention for all people is to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in chastity in singleness. Church property shall not be used for, and church officers shall not take part in conducting, any ceremony or event that pronounces blessing or gives approval of the church or invokes the blessing of God upon any relationship that is inconsistent with God's intention as expressed in the preceding sentence.

In November 2000, the Association of Stated Clerks issued the following analysis of this amendment:

Arguments supporting approval

  • The blessing of God on sexual relationships in the Bible is mentioned only in context between a man and a woman.
  • Same-sex unions diminish the Christian understanding of marriage (W-4.9004).
  • Confessional standards already include "the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness" (G-6.0106b).
  • Blessing a same-sex union implies the church’s approval of conduce which the Scriptures and our confessions call sin.
  • The church should speak against the confusion of our time. Celebrating unions between people of the same sex contributes to the confusion.

Arguments against approval

  • The addition of the amendment would interfere with pastoral care and freedom in an unprecedented manner.
  • The church should be able to trust pastors and sessions to act appropriately in situations in which there is cause for blessing such a union.
  • The amendment intrudes on the power and duty of sessions to determine uses of church property. See Book of Order G-10-0102o.
  • The addition of the amendment further divides the church.
  • The amendment is inconsistent with the PCUSA’s policy of acceptance of all persons into membership in the church. Denial of this blessing creates a category of second-class members.

Implications

If the amendment is approved, no church officer (minister, elder, or deacon) will be able to take part in conducting a ceremony that blesses a union that is not a covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, nor will church property be able to be used for such a ceremony.

Continuing the Journey, a publication produced by the Office of the General Assembly, warns that:

[A] provision in the Book of Order would now state what cannot be done on church property, otherwise under the control of the session; . . . the blessing of God would be withheld upon any heterosexual marriage of any couple not living in chastity in singleness; . . . the role of a pastor or other church officers in counseling on church property persons who may be considering a same-sex ceremony is unclear, as is the nature and kind of pastoral care that may be provided without being subject to possible ecclesiastical discipline. For example, attending a funeral of a gay person or administering baptism to the child of same-sex parents could cause trouble.

In a recent pastoral letter, nineteen former moderators urged the defeat of Amendment 0, cautioning that

Amendment 0 raises significant constitutional concerns that would lead us away from the traditional rights and responsibilities exercised by sessions and ministers. . . . Amendment 0 suggests a kind of "ecclesiastical micro-managing," prohibiting local church sessions from making the appropriate, thoughtfully considered decisions that our constitution asks them to make . . . [such as] to provide for the management of the property of the church, including determination of the appropriate use of church buildings and facilities" (G-1 0.0102 o) and "to oversee and approve all public worship in the life of the particular church" (W -1.4004 e ). . . . [A] minister should be permitted to exercise fully the God-given "suitable gifts for their various duties" (G-6.0106a) in their calling to "pray with and for the congregation" (G-6.0202). . . . Other pastoral implications of Amendment 0 [include] . . . the prohibition of the baptism of an adopted child, the banning of the presence of an elder at a beloved child's union service, the inability to conduct the funeral of a partner in an unmarried relationship.

In addition to the qualms noted above, Amendment O violates the confessional standards of our denomination on a number of levels when it comes to the issue of individual conscience. As Presbyterians we believe that God alone has authority over our consciences. Actions taken without consensus are improper, and matters on which consensus has not been reached must be left to the individual conscience of Sessions, ministers, and members. Surely this describes the current state of affairs in which Amendment 0 passed the General Assembly by the slim margin of only 17 votes. Consider the following references from our Book of Confessions and Book of Order as to what we should do in such instances: the Westminster Confession 6.109, G-1.0301a ("God alone is Lord of the conscience"), 6.109 ("to obey [manmade] commandments [that are contrary or extraneous to Scripture] is to betray true liberty of conscience"), 6.010 ("The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.") and 6.175 ("All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice"), G-1.0305 ("[T]here are truths and forms with respect to which men of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these we think is the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other."), G-1.0307 ("[N]o Church governing body ought to pretend to make laws to bind the conscience by virtue of its own authority"), the Larger Catechism 7.215 ("[the First Commandment makes it sin to make] men the lords of our faith and conscience"), the Scots Confession 3.18 ("The interpretation of Scripture, we confess, does not belong to any private or public person, nor yet to any Kirk for pre-eminence or precedence, personal or local, which it has above other") and 3.20 ("we do not receive uncritically whatever has been declared to men under the name of the general councils, for it is plain that, being human, some of them have manifestly erred, and that in matters of great weight and importance", the Second Helvetic Confession 5.011-014 ("accept what is in agreement and . . . reject what is in disagreement . . . we do not permit ourselves, in controversies about religion or matters of faith, to urge our case with only the opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils; much less by received customs, or by the large number of those who share the same opinion, or by the prescription of a long time . . . we reject human traditions, even if they be adorned with high-sounding titles, as though they were divine and apostolic"), and the Declaration of Barmen 8.20-21 "The various offices of the Church do not establish a dominion of some over the others; on the contrary, they are for the exercise of the ministry entrusted to and enjoined upon the whole congregation. We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give to itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.]

In Mark 10:35-45 James and John seek to sit at the right and left hand of Jesus in his glory. Jesus responds, "You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you . . . " There is a difference between authority and authoritarianism, and Amendment O crosses that line. Dictating how clergy and other church officers can minister to the members of their community of faith falls into the category of "lording it over" others, something that is decried in the Gospels, in our Book of Order, and in our Book of Confessions.

As the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (1993) has pointed out, passing such an amendment would set a very undesirable precedent, which "would open the door for further restrictions upon the individual performance of ministers and elders" (PCUSA Minutes, 1993, Pt. I, pp. 307-08).

Since the amendment in question is so divisive, as evidenced by the narrow, 17-vote margin of victory at GA, the adoption of such a measure would be a violation of Presbyterian polity. This aspect of the debate on Amendment O has led some voices within our church to call for Presbyteries to take "no action" on the amendment instead of voting "yes" or "no". Whether Los Ranchos takes that option remains to be seen. I would, however, urge either a "no" or "no action" vote on this poorly conceived amendment.

Chapter Contact Person

Linda A. Malcor
P.O. Box 749
Laguna Beach, CA 92652
(949) 425-9979
Legend@malcor.com

Chapter Website

http://www.dragonlordsnet.com/mlpoc.htm