[Submitted as a concurrence] The
Presbytery of Albany voted by strong voice vote to overture the General Assembly to provide an authoritative interpretation of W-4.9000 in the constitution of the PC(USA). The Overture was submitted by the sessions of the United Church of Greenwich, NY, and Westminster Presbyterian Church, Albany, NY.
The Presbytery of Albany respectfully overtures the 220th General Assembly (2012) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to provide the following authoritative interpretation of W-4.9000:
“Teaching elders and commissioned ruling elders authorized to conduct services of marriage may, at their sole discretion, following the discussion required in W-4.9002a, officiate at a service of Christian marriage for two persons who meet the legal requirements of the state and whom the elder determines demonstrate sufficient commitment, responsibility, maturity, and Christian understanding. Sessions may permit the use of church property for such services. Teaching elders and commissioned ruling elders may decline to conduct such services, and sessions may decline to permit the use of church property for such purposes.”
On July 24, 2011, the State of New York extended the right to marry to couples of the same gender, joining Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia. More states are expected to follow suit. Many Presbyterian churches, some in our presbytery, are receiving requests to celebrate their marriages in the Christian community from their lesbian and gay congregants, who expect to be afforded the pastoral care provided to other members.
The Directory for Worship acknowledges that marriage is a “civil contract” and therefore regulated by the state. It was written before the possibility of civil marriage between persons of the same sex was contemplated. Likewise, the 1991 GA Authoritative Interpretation that distinguished between a “same-sex ceremony” and a marriage, the 2000 Benton decision of the GAPJC, and the 2008 Spahr decision were all addressing ceremonies that were not legal civil marriages. In this interim, when the definition of civil marriage is changing, the Constitution requires interpretation to be applied to a variety of circumstances. One of the most pressing is the pastoral crisis that results when same sex couples ask the teaching and ruling elders of their congregation to permit and participate in their marriage services under Presbyterian church auspices, and those elders must hesitate for fear of challenge in church courts.
Worship is the central context of pastoral care for Christians:
The worship of God in the Christian community is the foundation and context for the ministry of pastoral care as well as for the ministry of nurture in the faith (Book of Order, W-6.4000; see also W-6.3002 and W-6.3010).
Lesbian and gay Presbyterians seeking the care of their church do not wish to provoke controversy, endanger their pastors, or embroil their congregations in judicial proceedings. Like heterosexual couples, they simply want the support of their faith community as they undertake the commitments and responsibilities of marriage. When the possibility of prosecution looms over pastors who are endeavoring to fulfill their promise to “pray for and seek to serve the people with energy, intelligence, imagination, and love” (W-4.4003h), anguish extends to the couple, the pastor, the congregation, and eventually the whole church.
Therefore we propose an Authoritative Interpretation of W. 4-9000 to clarify the ambiguities it contains. Much of the section is written in permissive or advisory language. The Preface to the Book of Order states that “SHALL and IS TO BE/ARE TO BE signify practice that is mandated” while “SHOULD signifies practice that is strongly recommended” and “MAY signifies practice that is permissible but not required.” The Preface to the Directory of Worship (section b) states: “In addition to the [above] terms defined in the Preface to the Book of Order, this [Worship] directory also uses language about worship which is simply descriptive.” For example, there is a logical conflict between the description of “Christian marriage” as an expression of “Christian commitment” and the allowance that one of the partners might not even be “a professing Christian.” (W-4.9002a1) The descriptions of Christian marriage, if prohibitive of ceremonies in which every detail does not conform to the descriptions, would forbid elders from officiating at interfaith marriages because they might, among other things, “diminish the Christian understanding of marriage.” If W-4.9000 was intended to set normative, mandatory, exclusive standards for what the PCUSA considers marriage, then those who conduct marriages would also be at risk for allowing music which fails to “direct attention to God and express the faith of the church” (W-4.9005) or for allowing “flowers, decorations, and other appointments” that do not “reflect the integrity and simplicity of Christian life.” There is nothing in the text of W-4.9000 that makes the “man and woman” description mandatory and the other details not mandatory. If officiating at the marriage of a same-gender couple is an offense, then any ceremony not conforming to every detail of W-4.9000, even a heterosexual marriage, is likewise an offense.
The comments of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution in 2008 and 2010 have affirmed the circumstances giving rise to the need for this Authoritative Interpretation, as in this passage from Minutes, 2010, p 887:
The Advisory Committee on the Constitution noted in 2008: “Changing civil understandings of marriage raise new questions of how pastors are to lead the church in exercising pastoral care to its members and compassionate witness and outreach to its neighbors… There is no question that the church is called to provide pastoral care to all individuals…” (Minutes, 2008, Part I, p. 254).
The enactment of laws which make it possible for same sex couples to enter into a civil contract raises the question then whether the key to the performance of marriage ceremonies, authorized by sessions, to be held in a church, and conducted by ministers or Commissioned Lay Pastors, is the civil contract or the gender of the parties. The traditional distinctions held by the PC(USA) are no longer as clear.
Pastors and sessions need the General Assembly’s assurance of their freedom and discretion to provide the pastoral care that their members require. This freedom is based on the same principle as W-4.9002b, which provides that pastors are free, as their judgment dictates, not to officiate at marriages their members and others are contracting.
In the absence of mandatory language in the Book of Order that would prohibit a service of Christian marriage for any couple that is legally permitted to marry, the assembly should reaffirm the principle of pastoral discretion in the form of the proposed authoritative interpretation. The authoritative interpretation will prevent deep grief to church members who might otherwise be denied the pastoral care of the church, and it will protect pastors and sessions from judicial challenge for exercising their pastoral responsibilities.
Links:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.