RICHMOND, Va. – In the final analysis, the 216th General Assembly
of the Presbyterian Church (USA) took a wait-and-see attitude on whether
to end its historic prohibition against ordaining practicing
homosexuals.
The commissioners ducked the issue by deferring to the denomination’s
Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity, which will make its
final report to the 217th General Assembly in 2006.
Some commissioners seemed to believe the task force will
recommend that the denomination live and let live; i.e., local option
for ordaining bodies. Others figured that buying time would prevent the
ordination issue from being settled during the Battle of Richmond, which
could have precipitated a massive, immediate withdrawal of Presbyterians
– and congregations – from the PCUSA.
But one Presbyterian scholar – Robert A.J. Gagnon of Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary — didn’t duck. Through The Layman Online,
Gagnon sent an unsolicited, open letter to the General Assembly that
challenged some of the task force’s theological assertions in its
preliminary report.
“In drastically truncating Ephesians’ message about purity,
the preliminary report of the task force deserves to be significantly
altered before acceptance by the General Assembly,” Gagnon said. “Failing
that, it should be rejected.”
He proceeded to pick apart the theological section of the report.
The report was based almost exclusively on selected verses from
Ephesians, emphasizing three points – Jesus is our peace; Jesus is
our unity; Jesus is our purity.
Period.
Gagnon argued that the task force misinterpreted several passages of
Scripture by shunning verses that call for Christians to be accountable
for their behavior.
“The report quotes copiously from Ephesians, citing 1:3-4; 2:13-14,
16, 21-22; 3:18, 20; 4:2-3, 5-6, 13; 5:2, 10, 25-27; 6:15,” Gagnon
said. “It omits the warning regarding false teaching in 4:14-16 (we
should not be ‘tossed to and fro by every wind of teaching’
but should rather ‘speak the truth in love’). Even more
importantly, it omits virtually the entire opening section on moral
transformation from 4:17 to 5:20 (36 verses).”
Gagnon argues that the task force, quoting from Eph. 5:10 a phrase about
“finding out what is pleasing to the Lord,” missed the point
altogether. “It is “cited to provide that we “should view
disputes as ‘gracious invitations to further work together,’”
he said.
“This is precisely what the text does not say in context. Rather,
in context, the text urges believers to be ‘determining what is
pleasing to the Lord’ based on the clarity of the church’s
moral exhortation on sexual ethics and other areas.”
Gagnon points out that the task force “unfortunately leaves out”
stern warnings and exhortations to the church to avoid licentiousness,
sexual impurity and sexual immorality (Ephesians 4:17-24; 5:3-12.)
Those exhortations, he says, are foundational to the argument that “no
unrepentant sexual impurity is to be tolerated indefinitely within the
community of faith. Indeed, it must not even be spoken about, that is,
in approving terms. Sexual impurity must rather be exposed and refuted.”
“The text also makes clear that serial unrepentant, sexually
impure behavior can risk a believer’s disinheritance from the
kingdom of God, subjecting the professed believer to the same wrath of
God that awaits unbelievers. It also goes so far as to say that
believers should disassociate from fellow believers who persist
unrepentantly in their sexually immoral behavior.”
Other task force statements and Gagnon’s responses:
Task force: “It is often difficult to see how this goal
of Christian purity can be squared with the equally important call to
unity and peace.”
Gagnon: “Not true. It is easily squared inasmuch as unity
and peace must always be centered on the lordship of Jesus Christ and
the ‘learning of Christ’ in accordance with the apostolic
witness. There is no such thing as a unity based on toleration, and even
approval, of sexual behavior that Jesus and the united witness of the
authors of Scripture would have been appalled by.”
Task Force: “While those who fail to seek purity in any
of its forms – truth, goodness, and justice – imperil the
faithfulness of the church, purity must not become a pretext for
division.”
Gagnon: “Not true. Rather, unity must not become a pretext
for impurity. Paul is quite clear in Ephesians 4-5 that serial
unrepentant sexual immorality of an egregious sort is just cause for
disassociation.”
Task Force: “In particular, unity cannot be attained if
the voices of some members of the body are ignored. It is especially
important, when the mind of the church is significantly divided and its
decisions are unlikely to be unanimous, that all voices be heard and
respected.”
Gagnon: “Not true. Ephesians 4-5 says the exact opposite.
The church must not allow acts defined as sexually immoral by the united
apostolic witness to be spoken about in an approving manner at any time
in the body of Christ.”
Task Force: “It is a necessity: union with Christ means
union with all the other members of Christ’s body, including those
with whom one would not ordinarily choose to associate.”
Gagnon: “To their ‘necessity,’ Paul would say, ‘Not
necessarily.’ Paul, rather, calls on believers to disassociate, at
least at some point, from fellow professed believers who refuse to
desist from acts that the apostolic witness deems to be sexually impure.
Paul treats this as a last-ditch measure on the part of the community to
bring offenders to their senses and so, hopefully, to reclaim them for
the kingdom of God.”
Task Force: “Christians cannot even entertain the
notion of severing their ties with sisters and brothers in Christ
without also placing themselves in severe jeopardy of being severed from
Christ himself.”
Gagnon: “Not true. The implication of Ephesians 4-5 is,
rather, that the church should consider disassociating themselves not
just from believers who persist in sexually immoral behavior but also
from believers who condone and support such behavior. Paul is quite
clear that believers who persist in sexually immoral behavior are the
ones that run that risk of being excluded from God’s kingdom, not
those who disassociate from such persons. In fact, Paul labels ‘deceitful’
all claims that such persons are not really at risk. Those who support
and condone sexually immoral behavior may become accomplices in a fellow
brother’s or sister’s possible exclusion from God’s
kingdom.”
Gagnon says the task force report, “in all of its severe
injunctions about the essential value of unity … ignores the
glaring fact that the PCUSA is a denomination. As such, it does not
share the same corporate institutional structure with, say, Methodists,
Lutherans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Pentecostals, Catholics, and others.
If we are not violating Ephesians by remaining in the PCUSA, a
denominational entity that is structurally separate from other
denominations, how can an “amicable institutional separation”
of very different elements within the PCUSA be a violation of Ephesians’
message on unity?”
He concluded: “And shouldn’t it be recognized that most people
in the PCUSA have for years felt a greater theological kinship with many
persons across denominational lines than with many persons within the
PCUSA? The PCUSA is already in de facto disunity and has been so for
decades or more.”
The task force will meet on August 3-6 in Dallas. The ordination issue
will be the major issue on the agenda.
Will Gagnon’s open letter be on the table?