Parker T. Williamson
Since 1978, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has spoken
clearly on the subject of sexual ethics. Forging its policy
from Scripture, the San Diego General Assembly declared that
extramarital sexual activity is contrary to Biblical teaching,
and persons who openly engage in the practice shall not be
ordained. The statement is unequivocal. Unsuccessfully
challenged over the succeeding 21 years, it remains the
definitive Presbyterian Church policy on sexual relations.
No one can miss the meaning of this policy. But we are living
in a season of casuistry, a time in which persons skilled in
word games seem intent on tweaking the letter of the law in
ways that defy its spirit.
In 1995, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission
voted not to allow the installation of a lesbian activist to a
Presbyterian pulpit. The majority based its decision on
General Assembly policy. But a substantial minority on that
court (which, we believe, is now the court’s majority)
insisted that if the General Assembly really meant to deny
ordination to practicing homosexuals, it must say so
explicitly in the constitution.
Presbyterians did precisely that. We supported the
constitutional change, but we also stated our regret that by
ignoring the heart of the law, our courts are reducing matters
of principle to jots and tittles. We wondered then how many
other minutiae our courts will force us to legislate in order
to ensure that the church’s Biblical principle be obeyed.
This year’s “holy union” controversy is a case
in point. The Presbytery of Hudson River wants to allow its
ministers to bless same-sex conjugal relationships. A synod
court has said that it may do so, because there is no explicit
wording in the constitution that prohibits ministers from
conducting such ceremonies.
Any thinking person would assume that a denomination whose
policy declares extramarital sex to be sinful would
automatically prohibit ceremonies that bless extramarital
sexual behavior. By refusing to make the necessary connection
between principle and practice, our courts are now forcing
Presbyterians to clutter the constitution with every
conceivable (and inconceivable) application. If we enact a
prohibition against “holy unions” this year, what is
to keep a court from saying that it does not apply to “blessed
unions,” or “committed unions?” The process
could continue ad nauseam.
While we will support overtures this year that plug Hudson
River’s loophole, we recognize that legislation offers no
long-term solution. Our courts must be peopled by
Presbyterians who revere not only the letter but also the
spirit of the law – the Spirit who gave the law. Judges
who demur from that sacred duty ought to resign.
Parker T. Williamson