Wrestle in Equal Measure

So much ink and blood has been spilled over the vexing subjects of homosexuality, the Bible and the church that I wonder whether anything useful can be served by returning to these matters again and stirring up pain on all sides. And there is pain! Hurting gay and lesbian Christians and their loved ones wrestling with how to stay in an “uncomfortable” and often condemning church; hurting believers who see their churches moving toward a revisionist interpretation of scripture with regard to appropriate sexual norms and behaviours, and thus diminishing the authority of the Bible; and ordinary folk in our congregations fearing their beloved church will be torn apart by divisive conflict. The rhetoric surrounding this debate has become toxic. Yet it is not going away, and we must wrestle with these matters honestly and graciously, as befits sisters and brothers in Christ.

How should Christians view same – gender partnerships? What does the Bible really teach about sexuality, marriage, and appropriate standards for ordained ministry, and how do these norms square with modern concerns for the full equality and civil rights of gay and lesbian persons? And is it possible for Presbyterians to come to a common mind on these matters?

I am a member of East Toronto presbytery where the “LGBT overture” originated. If approved by General Assembly, it would reverse the Presbyterian Church in Canada’s stance on same – sex marriage and its ban on non – celibate gay and lesbian clergy. Our presbytery undertook a two – month process of dialogue. Our conversations were respectful and honest, even though it was clear that we remained deeply divided. At our November meeting, a revised version of the overture was approved and sent to the upcoming assembly.

As a denomination, we are now at a crossroads. Will we endorse same – gender sexual relationships and make the requisite changes to our theology of sexuality, marriage and ordination standards? Or will we welcome gay and lesbian persons into our churches yet maintain the historic norms of chastity in singleness and fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman?

As Presbyterians, we acknowledge there are many sources of authority used to determine what we believe (doctrine) and how we are to live (ethics). Arguments are rightly made from reason, church tradition, scientific evidence, and human experience. But the Bible is our primary rule for faith and life. We read the word of God in scripture through the lens of Christ’s teaching and practice and within the cultural settings out of which it emerged (Living Faith 5.4), but we are bound to receive it as “the standard of all doctrine by which we must test any word that comes to us from church, world, or inner experience” (Living Faith 5.1). To do anything less is to lose our identity as Presbyterian and Reformed Christians.

By my reading of scripture, I am not convinced that this overture reflects the will of Christ. For me, and others like me, the case will need to be made on biblical and hermeneutical grounds. Yet the overture is weak precisely at this point, lacking sufficient biblical and theological reflection to warrant overturning the church’s historic position. Arguments arising from changing Canadian cultural values or appeals to generic “justice” or “inclusiveness” are not, in the end, a sufficient basis for changing our doctrine.

I perceive three different scenarios that may play themselves out as we wrestle with these matters.

We can fight. Over the last two decades we have witnessed numerous denominations battling it out in which one side seeks to triumph legislatively or procedurally over the other. While genuine theological debate is normal and healthy, the life and energy of the church is diminished when it remains in a state of perpetual war. Our collective energies go to winning the next round, but Christ’s larger mission inevitably suffers.

We can divorce (but probably not amicably). One side or the other could choose to leave the PCC. This is currently happening in the PC(USA), where more than 200 congregations have left the denomination in the past three years over these matters. We could go down this road of division. For the sake of getting on with Christ’s mission, it might even be within the permissive will of God. But I am loathe to further fragment the body of Christ, because the unity of the church is just as important as its purity.

We could try to live together while disagreeing. This scenario may be the most challenging of all. At its 2013 Assembly, the Church of Scotland agreed to affirm the church’s historic doctrine and practice regarding matters of human sexuality but gave permission to individual ministers and church sessions who wished to depart from the church’s stance the freedom to do so without fear of church discipline, appealing to the principle of freedom of conscience in these matters. Providing a “local option” within every congregation and session would mean that as a denomination, we would agree to disagree, and remain together despite our profound differences.

Can the PCC live with two substantially different visions of God’s intent for humanity and for what best contributes to human flourishing? Is this approach sustainable in the long term? In this scenario, neither viewpoint “wins.” To some, we will be undermining scripture and condoning sin. To others, we would be perpetuating an injustice. But it might provide a witness to the world that the unity we have in Christ outweighs our diversity on this important—but not all – important—subject.

As we seek to wrestle in equal measure with the truth and love of Christ’s gospel and its implications for how we can live together in the Body of Christ, I would welcome a season of prayer and honest dialogue together over the next few years to discover a way forward we can all live with. But it will require repentance, humility and courage from each of us.