What's next
I am sure that many people in our congregations are wondering what the actions of General Assembly regarding human sexuality mean and might change in the lives of
our churches in the short and in the long term. Here is what I would take away:
For the moment, nothing has actually
changed
The Assembly has essentially done nothing more and nothing less than
send a remit (outlined above) down to Presbyteries. Nothing really changes
until (or unless) that remit is approved by 50%+1 of Presbyteries representing
50%+1 of all the members of Presbyteries on the roll. Presbyteries cannot edit
or amend the remit; they can only approve or reject. Assuming the remit passes
this test, it will return to the subsequent General Assembly which also has the
opportunity to vote on it. General Assemblies generally approve any remit that
has passes through Presbyteries, but there have been a few historic exceptions.
Only after all of these tests have been passed would the remit be considered to
have changed the doctrine and practice of the church.
Assuming this all passes, does this change
what I’m supposed to believe?
No. The intent of this seems quite clear. It acknowledges that
faithful Christians may believe different things about marriage and ordination
and that is okay. In many ways is the first post-modern stance that the church
has ever taken, acknowledging the simple truth that we no longer live in a
world where Presbyterians will believe things simply because the church tells
them what they are supposed to believe.
Note, however, that while freedom of conscience is proclaimed and
nobody will force anybody to participate in a same-sex wedding or ordination of
LGBTQI+ clergy, that in no way gives anyone licence to treat anyone with
disrespect. The church has (in other actions) rejected and repented for the sin
of homophobia and no court of the church should in any sense tolerate actions
or words of hatred directed at anybody because of their sexual orientation or gender
identity. Members of Presbyteries will be expected to maintain good working
relations despite perhaps feeling very different about these matters.
How does this change my congregation?
This decision does not force any change upon any congregation; it actually
offers more freedom to congregations in their actions and decisions. Congregations
will be able to marry who they want to marry within the confines of Canadian
law. And congregations will be freer to choose qualified ministers to serve their
congregations as they will no longer be required to discriminate on the basis of
gender identity or sexual orientation. No one is going to force any
congregation to call a minister who does not fit the practices and teachings
that they are comfortable with.
What about LGBTQI+ candidates for ministry
or calls?
As this is implemented, it should mean that any LGTBTI+ candidates
should be eligible for any calls within congregations. All applications should
be given the same consideration. The only bar to a candidate being called
should be the prayerful and free choice of a congregation and search committee
and the general suitability of the candidate.
An
additional motion was passed instructing the Clerks of Assembly “to provisionally
prepare guidelines to ensure that calls to LGBTQI ministers and the election of
LGTBQI elders are facilitated in presbyteries and congregations.” The wording
of those guidelines will be of great importance (and I do not envy the task of
the clerks in writing them). These guidelines will have to make it clear that,
while Presbyteries have a right and duty to examine the life and conduct of any
student or candidate, nobody should be excluded simply on the grounds of their
gender identity or orientation.
What will my congregation have to do?
I see
nothing in any of this that requires any congregation to take a particular
action. There is nothing that requires, upon the completion of this process, a
session to declare what its stance is regarding marriage or ordination. It need
not decide anything until such time as someone may request a same-sex marriage,
an LGBTQI+ elder is elected or a potential minister applies for a position. I feel
I should state this because I understand that many congregations or sessions still
find it difficult to have those kinds of conversations. No one is actually obliging
you to have them.
That being
said, there is much to be said in favour of congregations acting proactively and
staking out their own identities and positions. We are no longer living in a
time and you can just assume that outsiders will know what your congregation
stands for if you do not explicitly say so. Outsiders will actually assume many
things and a lot of it may be very negative.
In
particular, those congregations that have chosen to be affirming of LGBTQI+
people have often found that they are met with a great deal of skepticism from a
community that has a history of being marginalized by the church. Therefore,
simply deciding to be affirming often has little impact. People will wait to
see how congregations actually demonstrate such a commitment in real life and
practice.
Thanks for your description of what happened at Assembly. Most I understand as your perspective and much I agree with in terms of how things unfolded and what the current situation is. However, I do have to disagree with something that you have written in relation to how you characterize what the situation would be if the remits are passed as they are being sent down. You say that the provisions for liberty of conscience and action would be practiced in a way "that in no way gives anyone licence to treat anyone with disrespect". I should say that I am not opposed to giving liberty of conscience to those already in the church. In fact I was on the "Implications" committee and signed off on our recommendation that liberty of conscience would be given to all those presently in the church and in preparation for ministry up to September 1, 2022. Unfortunately, in my mind, our recommendations were hijacked by those who proposed what are in the current remits that do not remain true to the provisions of Pathway B, Inclusion, which the Assembly endorsed.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I think that any provisions for liberty of conscience cannot be said to be without disrespect. I see this from the perspective of a gay man and I hope this would reflect the views of anyone who advocates for inclusion. Someone who would not marry me to the person I love, even if I was a faithful and active member of their congregation, or who would not attend my ordination or induction service as a minister or elder because I share my life with the person I love, is showing disrespect. Think of this in a different scenario. If we were talking about people who are not white, if on the basis of liberty of conscience you would not marry them to the person they love because they were not of the same "race" or would not participate in their ordination or induction because you believe their calling is not fully legitimate in the whole church because of their race, do you think this could ever be characterized in any way as being done with respect? These scenarios are not made up. They were lived out under the racial segregation laws of the US south, in apartheid South Africa and in many parts of the world under European colonial rule. We have since named them for what they were. Accommodation of racist or homophobic views and even practice is one thing. Saying that they can be lived out in a way that is respectful is another.
My comment was published as "Unknown". I am Bob Faris and I was not wishing to hide my identity.
ReplyDelete