The Redwoods Presbytery voted by 69 to 17 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 Covenant, Napa; First, San Anselmo; Windsor, Windsor; and Christ, San Rafael.
The Presbytery of the Redwoods overtures the 220th General Assembly (2012) to provide the following Authoritative Interpretation of the provisions of W-4.9000:
"The provisions of the Directory for Worship related to marriage (W-4.9001 and following) by their terms do not prohibit a Teaching Elder (also referred to as a Minister of Word and Sacrament) from officiating at a marriage service of a same-gender couple."
Rationale
This Overture clarifies that the provisions of the Directory for Worship related to marriage "by their terms" do not prohibit a Teaching Elder/Minister of Word and Sacrament from officiating at a marriage service of a same-gender couple. The Overture seeks to provide clarity in response to disciplinary proceedings that have been brought against faithful Teaching Elders/ Ministers of Word and Sacrament who have celebrated the marriages of same-gender couples, consistent with their constitutional responsibilities of pastoral care, inclusion, and non-discrimination, and consistent with their understanding of the Gospel. Those disciplinary proceedings have invoked W-4.9001 as a disciplinary offense, even though that section contains no mandatory or prohibitive language. The cost to the church is the prosecution "with no basis in the plain language of the constitution" of pastors who are faithfully living into their responsibilities under the constitution and Gospel.
The provisions of the Directory for Worship related to marriage are descriptive, and not prohibitive. As five members of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission have recently explained, "W-4.9001 is an introductory narrative for the whole section on marriage, outlining its biblical and theological characteristics as background to provisions of pastoral practice and nurture. Its content serves to establish a progression of four theological claims (gift, civil contract, covenant, commitment) as a foundation for the church's general understanding of marriage." See Southard v. Presbytery of Boston (GAPJC, February7, 2011).
They have further explained that "the language in [the marriage provisions] is not obviously legislative, in the sense of providing regulatory lines that define or proscribe behavior." W-4.9001 contains four descriptive statements describing marriage as a gift, a civil contract, a covenant, and a lifelong commitment (1).
None of these descriptive statements contains or constitutes a prohibition or mandatory standard. W-4.9001 is neither a mandatory nor a prohibitive directive. Moreover, this section of the Directory for Worship does not mention or address the marriage of same-gender couples. Neither does it prohibit a minister of word and sacrament from celebrating a legally sanctioned marriage in a service of Christian worship.
W-4.9001 contains none of the language that the Book of Order instructs must be present to set forth a mandate or a prohibition. Because this principle is so fundamental, it is captured on the first pages of the Book of Order: "In this Book of Order (1) SHALL and IS TO BE/ARE TO BE signify practice that is mandated; (2) SHOULD signifies practice that is strongly recommended; (3) IS APPROPRIATE signifies practice that is commended as suitable; (4) MAY signifies practice that is permissible but not required." Preface to the Book of Order (emphasis and caps in original). Indeed, the GAPJC not long ago affirmed that the phrase "should not" in our polity "is not prohibitive." Session of Second Presbyterian Church v. Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery, Remedial Case 217-5, at p. 4.
With respect to the performance of same-gender marriages, the Directory contains no injunction, such as "marriages ARE TO BE performed only between a man and a woman" or "ministers SHALL NOT perform same gender marriages." Indeed, all efforts to amend the Constitution to add such prohibitory language, and there have been many such attempts (2) -- have been voted down by the majority of Commissioners or Presbyteries. At the 219th General Assembly, the Assembly declined to consider such prohibitory language, along with all other overtures that sought to amend or clarify the language of the Directory of Worship's marriage provisions.
The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) does assign to Teaching Elders/ Ministers of Word and Sacrament the responsibility for pastoral care, and repeatedly advocates and mandates inclusion and the full participation of all people in the life and care of the church.
Prohibiting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) women and men from celebrating their marriages in services of Christian worship cuts them off from the pastoral care of the community that is required by our faith and our Constitution. This Overture asks the General Assembly to clarify that the plain language of the provisions of the Directory for Worship related to marriage (W-4.9001 and following) do not prohibit this pastoral care, and specifically, that they do not prohibit a Teaching Elder (also referred to as a Minister of Word and Sacrament) from officiating at a marriage service of a same-gender couple, as the couple and their families seek to celebrate marriage as a gift from God honored in Christian community.
(1) The entire section 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."
(2) Such efforts, for example, included a 1994 proposed amendment to W-4.9001 to say it was "not permitted for ministers to participate in the blessing of any same sex unions"; and similar failed amendments regarding the definition of marriage in 1995, 2000, 2006 and 2008.
Links:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.