What is the Place of Covenanted Same-Gender Partnerships in the Christian Community?

Our Starting Place

Included in the mandate of this special committee was a directive that the PC(USA) constitutional definition of Christian marriage not be changed. In our confessions, marriage is consistently defined as a lifelong covenant between God, a man and a woman, and the community of faith.

The PC(USA) Book of Order states:

Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith. (W-4.9001)

II. What Is the Place of Covenanted Same-Gender Partnerships in the Christian Community?

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God. (Eph.2:19–22)

When Christ calls a man [sic], he bids him come and die. (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship)

A. Our Current Disconnect

The Presbytery of Denver’s overture to the 218th General Assembly (2008) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is part of the larger struggle that our denomination has had over homosexual practice for the past three decades.

The 190th General Assembly (1978) of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. issued a report on homosexual practice that found the following: (1) “homosexuality is a contradiction of God’s wise and beautiful pattern for human sexual relationships revealed in Scripture …”; (2) “unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination”; (3) “Persons who manifest homosexual behavior must be treated with the profound respect and pastoral tenderness due all people of God” as they “strive toward God’s revealed will in this area of their lives and make use of all the resources of grace”; (4) “There is no legal, social, or moral justification for denying homosexual persons access to the basic requirements of human existence” (Minutes, UPCUSA, 1978, Part I, pp. 261–66). The authoritative interpretation on ordination (point 2 above) was set aside by the 218th General Assembly (2008) (Minutes, 2008, Part I, p. 373).

This same 1978 report asserted that

the church’s grappling with the issue of homosexuality has already energized its membership in a remarkable reawakening of prayer and theological study. Our study should continue with the aim of reaching harmony in our diverging positions on homosexuality and other critical issues. Our prayer should now be concentrated upon this process of internal reconciliation…. (Minutes, UPCUSA, 1978, Part I, pp. 261–66)

History’s trajectory, looking at the thirty years that separate us from those hopes and prayers, has not been a gradual harmony, but an increasingly strident and rigid disharmony that threatens to once more tear the PC(USA) asunder.

Two reasons for this continued discord are: (1) disconnect between the theological/pastoral and advocacy strands of the 1978 report on homosexuality and (2) divergent readings of Scripture. Because these are foundational principles, the special committee could not reach consensus.

Over the past three decades, General Assemblies have agreed to pursue advocacy for the homosexual person. During the same time, in presbytery votes, the theological standards have been upheld, particularly in regard to the sexual behavior of those seeking ordination. Recent General Assemblies have begun to advocate for rights for same-gendered couples instead of the individual person.

Most recently, the 218th General Assembly (2008) acted to “renew and strengthen the long-standing Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) commitment to equal protection under the law for lesbian and gay persons and the 216th General Assembly (2004)’s affirmation of the right of same-gender persons to civil union and, thereby, to all the benefits, privileges, and responsibilities of civil union” (Minutes, 2008, Part I, p. 259). This action did not define what the “benefits, privileges, and responsibilities of civil union” should be or how they might relate to the privileges and responsibilities of civil marriage or Christian marriage.

The difficulty is this: Whereas one could advocate for civil rights of the person while continuing to uphold the theological standard cited above and providing pastoral care that worked toward conformity with this theological position, when the General Assembly began to move toward advocacy for the couple, the strands became disconnected for many members in the PC(USA). It seemed contradictory to encourage public favor and subsidy for a behavior that the church had found to be outside of God’s design. Or, from the other perspective, it seemed contradictory to demand equality in society that was denied within the church.

B. Variant Interpretations

Second, there truly exist variant interpretations of Scripture that in turn dictate different pastoral models and advocacy models. The variant interpretations of Scripture are the foundational reason that the 1978 theological/pastoral/advocacy strands have unraveled. The ongoing controversy around this issue and others will not be resolved until consensus is reached on the interpretation of Scripture. Unity cannot be reached through polity inventions. Unity will only be reached through common affirmation of truth.

There are at least two larger approaches to biblical interpretation at play in these debates. One tends to call itself “liberal” or “progressive.” The other is variously labeled as “evangelical,” “conservative,” “orthodox,” or “traditional.” Admitting that the terms and descriptions are oversimplified and miss many nuances, it is still useful to compare the two perspectives.

Both approaches appeal to Scripture, although they read it differently. Both refer to history and biological and social sciences. Both see their approach as compassionate toward lesbians and gays, although they understand the requirements of compassion quite differently.

Traditionalists tend to focus on specific biblical commandments that appear to prohibit same-sex relations categorically. Progressives tend to focus on broader principles of love and justice that they regard as more important than the specific commandments.

Traditionalists tend to emphasize a core meaning of marriage established by God in creation. They see the near universality of marriage in almost all known cultures as confirmation of God’s design in creation.

They think it unwise for either church or society to alter the core meaning of marriage. Progressives tend to emphasize the variability of marriage across human history and around the world. They are reluctant to fix a core meaning. They view further evolution of the institution as natural and necessary.

Traditionalists tend to see the biblical writers, and the church through its history, as elaborating a fairly consistent strand of teaching on marriage, under divine inspiration. They believe that the church can apply that teaching directly today, despite the differences and even injustices of the societies in which it was formed. Progressives tend to stress contradictions between various biblical passages and church attitudes toward marriage over the years. They view the biblical authors as captives of limited cultural perspectives prevalent in societies deformed by patriarchy and other injustices. They are reluctant to apply sexuality standards originating in the ancient Near East to a modern society that has more scientific knowledge about sexuality.

Traditionalists tend to view the two sexes, male and female, as an important part of God’s providence in creation. They therefore regard marriage, the institution joining the two sexes, as of unique social importance. Although they recognize how sin has distorted relationships between the sexes, and how the grace of Jesus Christ may open new possibilities for just relationships between men and women, they do not believe that God’s grace in Christ nullifies God’s earlier grace in making two complementary sexes to be joined together. Progressives tend to be wary of any purported distinctions between the sexes, in which they suspect the taint of past patriarchal attitudes. They take Paul’s declaration that in Christ “there is no longer male and female” (Gal. 3:28) as a mandate for reconfiguring institutions, such as traditional marriage, that take account of sex differences. For them the biological or social gender identity of a spouse should be an irrelevant factor.

Traditionalists tend to see God’s commands as offering clear choices between limited options. For them, marriage is the single norm for human sexual expression. The ways to God’s blessing are two: either fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness. Progressives tend to be open to other kinds of covenanted sexual relationships.

Traditionalists draw out biblical themes of purity, emphasizing the calling of Christians to keep their bodies as “the temple of the Holy Spirit.” They speak against specific sexual acts—homosexual acts, or any sex outside of marriage—that they understand to violate that purity. Progressives tend to regard this emphasis on purity as outdated and unhelpful. They are more concerned about the emotional content of a relationship—the love, trust, and commitment between individuals—than about the form of the relationship or the bodily acts by which it is expressed.

Traditionalists acknowledge that sexual desires may be deep-seated; however, they emphasize the choices that individuals have in how to act on their desires. They affirm that, by God’s grace, the behaviors—and even sometimes the desires—can be transformed. Progressives tend to view sexual orientation as a fundamental, indelible part of an individual’s personality. They stress the likelihood that persons will act on their desires and the unlikelihood that the desires can be redirected.

Traditionalists acknowledge that the church has changed its mind previously on issues such as slavery, divorce, and women’s ordination. But they believe those revisions of doctrine came about because of fresh insight into the Scriptures—not merely out of a desire to conform to social trends. They do not see the issue of homosexuality as analogous, because the biblical texts on that topic are much less ambiguous. Progressives believe that sometimes God moves first in society to bring about greater justice and then pulls the church along behind. They believe that changes in teaching on slavery, divorce, and women’s ordination do set a valid precedent for a possible change in teaching on sexuality.

The pastoral model for traditionalists is: Compassion toward practicing homosexual persons means calling them, with all heterosexuals who have departed from God’s intentions, to repentance and restoration. The advocacy model is to call society away from its destructive “anarchy in sexual relationships” (The Book of Confessions, The Confession of 1967, 9.47). For progressives the pastoral model is: Compassion means affirmation of everyone’s sexual orientation and encouragement to use it responsibly in covenanted relationships. The advocacy model is to seek the dissolution of distinctions between marriage and same-gender relationships.

C. A Question for the Church

The 2008 overture that mandated the formation of this special committee recognized this disconnect. The overture recognized that there are same-gendered partners in the PC(USA). It asked the special committee to state the place of such partnered couples within the Christian community. The overture further asked the committee to explore marriage from a historical, sociological, and political (legal) perspective. The committee has attempted to do this exploration in an accurate, descriptive manner.

Discerning the place of same-gender partnerships in the Christian community, however, requires us to move beyond description and affirm an understanding of the nature of Christian community. First, the Christian community is found in the church. The church is for “the gathering and perfecting of the saints” (The Book of Confessions, The Westminster Confession of Faith, 6.142). We are sealed by baptism into this community. But baptism signifies “forgiveness of sins” (The Book of Confessions, The Nicene Creed, 1.3), “walk[ing] in newness of life” (The Book of Confessions, The Westminster Confession of Faith, 6.154), “an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s” (The Book of Confessions, The Larger Catechism, 7.275), “dying with Christ and a joyful rising with him to new life” (The Book of Confessions, The Confession of 1967, 9.51), “present[ing] [our] bodies to be living sacrifices to God” (Book of Order, W-1.3033).

Therefore the question must be addressed from the perspective of the church as a place to gather and perfect the saints. Ultimately, we find the answer in the person and work of Jesus Christ, as known in Scripture, affirmed in the confessions, and operationalized through the Book of Order. It is only by looking at this question as one of discipleship, of sanctification, that we can ensure that the PC(USA) bears the marks of a true church: “first, the true preaching of the Word of God…; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus…; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly administered, as God’s Word prescribes…” (The Book of Confessions, The Scots Confession, 3.18). It is only when we find our unity in the purity of the Word of God that we fulfill our connectional responsibilities to each other.

Based on the above-outlined diversity in views of Scripture and resulting pastoral and advocacy models, the special committee could not develop consensus on the question about same-gender partnerships. The special committee believes there is also significant disagreement among members and officers of the church regarding this question.

D. Historic Principles

In this situation of disagreement, we do well to return to the “Historic Principles of Church Order” expounded in Chapter I of the PC(USA) Form of Government: “God alone is Lord of the conscience,” it declares, “and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men [sic] which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship” (G-1.0301). So our consciences are not free in every respect, but rather we are called to bring them into captivity to God’s Word. It is only when confronted with demands that are “contrary to his Word, or beside it,” that we may claim freedom of conscience.

Regarding such scripturally undetermined matters, the historic principles state that “there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good characters and principles may differ.” They advise that “in all these we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other” (Book of Order, G-1.0305). On the other hand, where Scripture does determine a question, “it is incumbent upon these officers, and upon the whole Church, in whose name they act, to censure or cast out the erroneous and scandalous, observing, in all cases, the rules contained in the Word of God” (Book of Order, G-1.0303).

The issue before us is whether this question of covenanted same-gender partnerships is determined by the Word of God or not. The fact that equal sisters and brothers in Christ have differing convictions does not imply that all those convictions have equal standing in the church. The historic principles maintain that “no opinion can be … more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s opinions are. On the contrary, we are persuaded that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty” (Book of Order, G-1.0304).

E. The Constitution Holds

As we work through our disagreements, we recognize that church teaching and church policy are still set by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Members of the special committee may not agree on civil unions and Christian marriage; however, the Constitution has authoritative provisions that bear on these questions. Until such time as the church’s understanding of marriage is changed in The Book of Confessions and the Book of Order, those provisions remain in force. The burden of proof rests on those who would change the teaching.

Since decisions relating to marriage are made by ministers and sessions, it is well to review the obligations of those officers. All church officers vow to “be instructed and led by those confessions as [they] lead the people of God.” They also pledge to “be governed by our church’s polity” and “abide by its discipline” (Book of Order, W-4.4003c, e).

“So far as may be possible without serious departure from these standards [of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government], without infringing on the rights and views of others, and without obstructing the constitutional governance of the church,” officers have “freedom of conscience with respect to the interpretation of Scripture.” But “in becoming a candidate or officer of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds. His or her conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church so long as he or she continues to seek or hold office in that body” (Book of Order, G-6.0108a–b).

Regarding marriage, the Constitution consistently declares that:

• Marriage “was instituted by the Lord God himself” (The Book of Confessions, 5.246; also 6.131, 6.133, 7.130, 9.47, and Book of Order, W-4.9001);
• Marriage is a “spiritual and physical union [of] one man and one woman” (The Book of Confessions, 6.131; also 5.246, 6.133);
• Marriage is “designed of God to last as long as they both [husband and wife] shall live” (The Book of Confessions, 6.133; also 6.131, 6.137, 9.47 and Book of Order, W-4.9001);
• “Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family” (Book of Order, W-4.9001; also The Book of Confessions, 6.131);
• Marriage serves purposes including “the mutual help of husband and wife;…the safeguarding, undergirding, and development of their moral and spiritual character;…the propagation of children and the rearing of them in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (The Book of Confessions, 6.134; also 6.131);
• “Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man” (Book of Order, W-4.9001);
• “For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship” (Book of Order, W-4.9001);
• Christian marriages are to be “publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith” (Book of Order, W-4.9001);
• Christians are called to continence in single life or “complete love and concord” in marriage (The Book of Confessions, 5.245–.246; also 4.108, 7.248–.249).

Authoritative interpretations of the Constitution have established that:

• “Officers of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) who are authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply, or represent that a same-sex ceremony is a marriage because under W-4.9001 a same-sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage” (Spahr case, Minutes, 2008, Part I, p. 331, 333).
• Sessions “should not allow the use of the church facilities for a same sex union ceremony that the session determines to be the same as a marriage ceremony” (Minutes, 1991, Part I, p. 395).
• Ministers and churches may celebrate a “loving, caring, and committed relationship” between persons of the same sex. But such a ceremony should not “appropriate specific liturgical forms from services of Christian marriage,” nor should it “confer a new status” upon the persons being blessed. It should not be “construed as an endorsement of homosexual conjugal practice.” Same-sex couples should be instructed “that the service to be conducted does not constitute a marriage ceremony” (Benton case, Minutes, 2000, Part I, p. 588).

F. A Faithful Answer

God calls us into relationship with God and then with others. In fact, the call to love one’s neighbor is a command. In fulfilling this command for relationship with others, we must act in conformity with the first relationship to God that we have through Jesus Christ. Then in this life of discipleship to Christ, we are called to become his bond servant: body, soul, and mind. Our bodies are the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. We must use our bodies within God’s design. Because God’s design is rooted in creation, this design is not just for the believer but for humanity. Therefore, friendships, whether of same or opposite gender, which do not violate God’s boundaries of sexual expression as defined in Scripture, the confessions, and the Book or Order can be honored and encouraged. However, those relationships, whether same or opposite gendered, that although committed and caring, which are outside of God’s design of sexual expression, cannot be encouraged or blessed. Pastoral care must be extended to all people within the body of Christ. Such care should always conform to the standards of the confessions as the church works to “gather and perfect” the saints.

For over three decades, the PC(USA) has wrestled with questions of human sexuality. When presbyteries have been asked to depart from the historic teaching of the church, they have declined. The Book of Order has been amended to make clear that chastity outside of marriage and monogamy within marriage, with marriage being defined as one man, one woman is a requirement for ordination. If this standard is considered serious enough to bar ordination, then the church in good conscience cannot encourage behavior or relationships that violate this standard. The Benton and subsequent decisions make it clear that in blessing same-sex couples, such blessings cannot be seen as marriage and cannot be construed as blessing sexual activity within these relationships.

This answer to the question about the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships may not be the answer that the Presbytery of Denver expected or desired. Others, too, may be disappointed. But this is the most faithful answer that we can give, within the faith that we have received and to which we have pledged ourselves.

The full Minority Report and Committee Report are available on www.pc-biz.org, Committee 12.

This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 16, No. 3 (May/Jun 2010).