https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.churchandworld.com/PCUSA/2010/News/1129-EdKoster-Manifesto.pdf.
SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!! If you are planning on reading the whole document you may not want to read any further. The essence of what Koster is proposing comes in just one paragraph on the last page:
I believe our position on ordination is wrong; I have held that belief since 1978. As a stated clerk I am dedicated to doing what I can to ensure that our standards are enforced, but I do so holding my nose and with great anguish at the damage done to this Church I love by the current arguments and strategies to resolve the issue. I therefore do not propose an amendment to the Constitution that says non-celibate gays and lesbians may not be ordained. I propose instead that we amend G-6.0106b in such a way as to make an affirmative declaration that it is possible. I suggest that G-6.0106b could be amended in a way that might look something like this:
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 (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. A person who has stood before the church with a partner of the same sex and pledged exclusivity, permanence, and the dedication of the union to the worship and service of God satisfies this provision. 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.
I believe this addition incorporates the values and traditions we embrace and want to preserve. And I believe it preserves our connectional values rather than encourages fragmentation by local option.
[End of quote]
Ed has proposed a both/and answer to a question that heretofore has been posed as either/or. I have to say that I'm skeptical that this is the magic bullet that will solve all of our problems. We would have to consider the issue of same-sex marriage and change our definition of that institution before what Ed proposes could be considered. And I question whether the center of the church is unified enough to force such a solution on the extremes, or that the center would even find this acceptable. But Ed offers us a perspective we haven't seen, and it's worthy of consideration.
What do you think?
I've gone back and forth with Koster at some length about this, both over email and also through a Facebook discussion group that he created. As a proponent of LGBTQ ordination, I would absolutely vote for, and advocate voting for, this middle position. In fact, I think it is the best middle position I have yet seen in this entire debate, and like Koster I am surprised that it has gotten so little traction (that is, I hadn't heard about it until information about it was forwarded to me by Tom Hobson).
ReplyDeleteI actually think that the majority of pro-inclusion persons would be in favor of this middle position. None of them, to my knowledge, have ever advocated that there should be no restrictions on sexuality whatsoever (something I disagree with Koster on), and no one has been able to point me to a prominent advocate of inclusion in the PC(USA) saying such a thing (including Koster and the people I was discussing this with on Facebook).
On the other hand, if marriage is the standard, then we could only have inclusive ordination in states where same-sex marriage was legal, and of course the church itself would not condone performing those marriages as it stands now. That would not be a solution, just a shuffling around of the problem.
But if this was the proposal before us in March, I would happily argue in favor of it, and I would even use 90% of the same arguments I use now to advocate for inclusion, with the addition of others that would be germane to the new proposal.
That being said, is it the silver bullet? Probably not. But I do think that the vast majority of pro-inclusion types would be for it (if not essentially all of us), and that those in the middle who are concerned about entirely eroding sexual standards in the PC(USA) might also get on board. The change would not require a silver bullet effect, but rather just about a dozen closely divided Presbyteries changing their stance with comparison to the vote 2 years ago.
Actually, this proposal inspired a colleague of mine and I to start brainstorming a book, but that's a whole other story.
Overall, I don't think this conflict will end any time soon - even if we pass 10A, it will mean a new slim majority and a new huge minority, and there are so many issues like biblical interpretation and sexual ethics and theology tied up in this debate, as well as a parallel debate on same-sex marriage...my highest hope would be that we would be able to relegate these specific debates to a more appropriate level of priority - far beneath things like poverty, violence, broad injustice, etc.
Actually, the "spoiler" posted by Marty is a spoiler only if one takes a stand on the "yes/no" model. I believe the spoiler should have read:
ReplyDelete"Currently the question is stated this way:
Shall we make it possible to ordain noncelibate gays and lesbians? Answer: yes or
no.
I believe the question needs to be framed this way:
Is it possible that two people of the same sex can engage in sexual intimacy in
a context that is true to Scriptural norms and our historic values?
What is simply true is that what we have been doing over the last 40 years has failed. We
need to find a different way, and framing the debate in a new way can be a place to begin. If this
is to be done, it must be done with great care, for it is no small thing to assert that we can declare
null and void clearly stated words of Scripture or override two millennia of tradition. It must be
done only with prayer and study and deliberation and debate and fear and trembling."
After proposing that we should ask the "context" question, I proposed a context. Marty's spoiler notes that another answer could have been given, one that comports with his "no" conclusion. I proposed one that had a "yes" conclusion. I encourage folks to plow through my entire paper.
Ed Koster
Thanks, Ed and Doug, for your responses. I do encourage everyone to take the time to read Ed's paper in its entirety. It gives a valuable lesson in the history, polity and theology of this issue.
ReplyDeleteOne line in your response intrigues me: "...it is no small thing to assert that we can declare null and void clearly stated words of Scripture or override two millennia of tradition."
While we've done that on a practical level, and indeed each of us has our own canon within the canon, I don't know of even one example of an official church action declaring that a passage of Scripture is null and void. We've changed our interpretation at times, but we've never invalidated Scripture itself.
I came of age in the days of the Maxwell (Kenyon) case and 1980's Overture L, which put into the Book of Order the requirement that every Session must have women members. I went into seminary unsure about the ordination of women, so this provoked a crisis of conscience for me. At one point I almost took off for St. Louis to attend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church's first General Assembly to ask them to receive me as their first candidate. But then I came across a little booklet entitled Women Elders: Sinners or Servants? by Richard and Catherine Kroeger, a clergy couple that attended Fuller Seminary (it's still available for download, but with a new title: Women Elders...Called by God?). They presented a convincing exegetical argument for ordination of women that affirmed rather than discredited Scripture. That, and a few other books, like Don Williams' The Apostle Paul and Women in the Church, changed my mind on the issue.
I've repeatedly said that someone needs to write a similar work on homosexuality and ordination. If someone can show through sound exegetical principles that Scriptures allow their ordination, I could see myself changing my mind. But I've never seen such a work, and many of my colleagues say it would be impossible to produce one. The argument for inclusion, it seems to me, depends on a functional invalidation of parts of the Bible.
I believe when we amended Westminster to allow remarriage after divorce and reinterpreted Scripture to allow women to be ordained, we basically declared null and void the words as writ. One can claim that we did nothing more than come to learn what Scripture really intended, but that is nothing more than weaseling.
ReplyDeleteEd
"The argument for inclusion, it seems to me, depends on a functional invalidation of parts of the Bible."
ReplyDeleteObviously I disagree, but all my argument to that end has already pretty much been made.
You also mentioned canon within the canon. It isn't necessary to declare a part of scripture null and void for us to find another part of scripture that trumps it. Even Augustine encouraged Biblical interpretation that took passages of love literally and passages of malice figuratively or metaphorically. We don't have to declare parts of the OT null and void in order to disagree with passages which (wrongly) depict God calling for genocide, for example. We can just use scripture to interpret those passages, and ask whether we can imagine Jesus in the Gospels calling for the genocide of his enemies. I recall he encouraged another method vis enemies, and I think that principle trumps whatever military leaders might have had to say about their adventures and God's supposed approval.
The Bible disagrees with itself on very basic questions like "why do people suffer?" You can read clear affirmations that people suffer because of sin, and other clear statements that this is most certainly not the case, both in the Bible.
Or you can find very clear injunctions against things that God tells Peter to do outright in a dream - not just to eat unclean things, but to go and welcome a Gentile family (part of the pagan military occupation of the Holy Land no less) into the covenant.
The Bible breaks it's own rules. I actually think that in many places, the Bible is at great pains to do so clearly and purposefully. And yet I often hear people referring to it as if it was a rules manual.
I think that to present the Bible has having univocal answers to every question is to misrepresent it. One can perhaps find a canon within the canon which reads like a rules manual, but that's skipping a great deal of really good stuff (almost all of the wisdom tradition, for example; huge chunks of the Gospels; most of the stories).
I also definitely see interpretation, something everyone does no matter what they may claim, where Ed sees "weaseling", but that should be readily apparent about me at this point :)
Where I continue to agree with Ed Koster, however, is that everyone who is interested in issues of ordination should read his proposal in it's entirety. It's a short read, and I'm even a slow reader. As I've said before, I'd vote for it if it was before us now.
ReplyDeletethat was really very nice blog. but i can not make any choice of wordss to answer that question of yours
ReplyDelete