If anyone outside of the Presbyterian Church (USA) were to join us over the next couple days, they'd probably think we were a little bit obsessed with talking about sex. Certainly the "Fred Phelps"-type folks who were picketing outside the Convention Center last night think we are probably incredibly obsessed with and misguided about sexuality. Sexuality has been a part of many of the conversations over the past few days, and those conversations will probably be getting even more heated as we debate these issues on the floor of the Assembly today and tomorrow.
Much of the sexuality discussion is found in the questions concerning ordination of LGBT folk (the work of the Church Orders and Mission Committee), but there have been other places in which the discussion has surfaced, including a vote taken last night and one this morning. Last night there was a lot of debate concerning 12-08: On Directing the GAC to Produce Adolescent Human Development Resources. The recommendation was as follows:
This morning we had discussions concerning 13-06: On Correcting Translation Problems of the Heidelberg Catechism. The recommendation was to fix some translation errors and was sponsored by over 30 seminary professors from our Presbyterian theological seminarians. One of the reasons it was so controversial (it was the first recommendation to have produced a minority report) is that it asks that a reference to "homosexual perversion" be taken out, because it says that those people "will never come into the possession of the kingdom of God." The phrase, "homosexual perversion" was inserted into the catechism in the 1960s. Once again, after a lot of discussion about homosexuality and "backsliding progressives" and their agendas, the recommendation passed by a vote of 436 voting yes, 280 voting no and 11 abstaining. That means 60% voted in support of the recommendation (news article here).
What I, and others, are wondering is whether these two votes - which have dealt pretty explicitly with sexuality and homosexuality - be setting the tone for how the votes about the deletion of G-6.0106b will go tomorrow? On each of the previously mentioned recommendations, they've both been passed by a healthy majority. There are some who are guessing that we might actually vote yes for the recommendation to delete G-6.0106b, but that it will probably not pass when it goes to the presbyteries. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out tomorrow morning - but it does seem like the general feeling toward sexuality this year at General Assembly is one that might be leaning toward more inclusivity and openness.
Much of the sexuality discussion is found in the questions concerning ordination of LGBT folk (the work of the Church Orders and Mission Committee), but there have been other places in which the discussion has surfaced, including a vote taken last night and one this morning. Last night there was a lot of debate concerning 12-08: On Directing the GAC to Produce Adolescent Human Development Resources. The recommendation was as follows:
"The Presbytery of Grace overtures the 218th General Assembly (2008) to direct the General Assembly Council to produce adolescent human development resources based upon Scripture and the Reformed theological tradition. These resources would explore all facets of adolescent development including human sexuality."There were some that wanted more specific wording as to what issues related to sexuality would be covered, what position would be taken concerning homosexuality, and others wanted to specify that marriage was something that happened between a man and a woman. In the end, these and other amendments and proposals were rejected, and the original recommendation passed by a vote of 509 voting yes, 188 voting no and 5 abstaining. That means 73% voted in support of the recommendation.
This morning we had discussions concerning 13-06: On Correcting Translation Problems of the Heidelberg Catechism. The recommendation was to fix some translation errors and was sponsored by over 30 seminary professors from our Presbyterian theological seminarians. One of the reasons it was so controversial (it was the first recommendation to have produced a minority report) is that it asks that a reference to "homosexual perversion" be taken out, because it says that those people "will never come into the possession of the kingdom of God." The phrase, "homosexual perversion" was inserted into the catechism in the 1960s. Once again, after a lot of discussion about homosexuality and "backsliding progressives" and their agendas, the recommendation passed by a vote of 436 voting yes, 280 voting no and 11 abstaining. That means 60% voted in support of the recommendation (news article here).
What I, and others, are wondering is whether these two votes - which have dealt pretty explicitly with sexuality and homosexuality - be setting the tone for how the votes about the deletion of G-6.0106b will go tomorrow? On each of the previously mentioned recommendations, they've both been passed by a healthy majority. There are some who are guessing that we might actually vote yes for the recommendation to delete G-6.0106b, but that it will probably not pass when it goes to the presbyteries. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out tomorrow morning - but it does seem like the general feeling toward sexuality this year at General Assembly is one that might be leaning toward more inclusivity and openness.
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entry
Your Responses (5)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Response from John Shuck,
June 27, 2008
...
...
Good post, Adam. Good coverage all around. I might add that the Presbyterian Outlook website and coverage is superb!
My two cents. I think if this GA passes the Boston Overture, it will first remove the AIs which is a major step that do not require presbytery vote.
Further, I think there is a very good chance it will pass in the presbyteries as well. Times are changing.
My two cents. I think if this GA passes the Boston Overture, it will first remove the AIs which is a major step that do not require presbytery vote.
Further, I think there is a very good chance it will pass in the presbyteries as well. Times are changing.
Response from Earl Apel,
June 27, 2008
...
First of all I thank you and the Outlook for the great coverage of the GA. I happened to get an email alert from the Outlook a couple of weeks ago about GA and that is why I viisited the site.
I found the language change in the Heidelberg Catechism interesting. What I've discovered as a gay man in the PC (USA) is that things tend to be so wishy-washy and not so clear. So unlike Presbyterians that want the i's dotted and the t's crossed. Even knowing the background of the Heidelberg C. if one were to just simply read it without knowing the history, I from my perspective would have to ask what is "homosexual perversion"? The fact the two terms are together implies that there can exist a "homosexual non-perversion". I think most Presbyterians would agree that there is heterosexual perversion and thus we also have heterosexual non-perversion.
Taking the role of the ordinary person in the pew, it seems to me that our constitution (BoO and Confessions) should be clear enough that we don't have to have knowledge of what went on when a committee produced it so we would have to know the real intention. It should be quite black and white.
It's another thing when speaking of the Bible for certainly no one living today was there when it was written. History and knowledge of background are essential in knowing what the Bible says to us as Christians.
Is it asking too much of the GA and the PC (USA) at large to just simply take time to say what you really mean instead of using wishy-washy language that has to be interpreted and thus brought into legal challenages?
The references to ex-gays perfectly illustrate my point. It is my experience as a gay man in exploring the ex-gay movement is it's existence is based on the idea that there is really not such thing as a gay person to begin with. A gay person is simply confused. The gay person is really hetero as God created the gay person to be. So if that be the case, how can one supporting ex-gays support a confession that includes the word "homosexual perversion"? The fact is that homosexuals do not exist in their world. It is a case of good heterosexuals who have gone astray. The more accurate word in the confession would be "heterosexual perversion".
Maybe the PC (USA) will eventually be clearer in it's talk and walk about LGBT persons. I'm quite hopeful and thus am committed to staying around until this happens. I think more positives are happening these days than the negatives in the past.
Yours in Christ,
Earl Apel
Deacon, Mount Auburn Presbyterian, Church
Ciincinnati, OH
...
First of all I thank you and the Outlook for the great coverage of the GA. I happened to get an email alert from the Outlook a couple of weeks ago about GA and that is why I viisited the site.
I found the language change in the Heidelberg Catechism interesting. What I've discovered as a gay man in the PC (USA) is that things tend to be so wishy-washy and not so clear. So unlike Presbyterians that want the i's dotted and the t's crossed. Even knowing the background of the Heidelberg C. if one were to just simply read it without knowing the history, I from my perspective would have to ask what is "homosexual perversion"? The fact the two terms are together implies that there can exist a "homosexual non-perversion". I think most Presbyterians would agree that there is heterosexual perversion and thus we also have heterosexual non-perversion.
Taking the role of the ordinary person in the pew, it seems to me that our constitution (BoO and Confessions) should be clear enough that we don't have to have knowledge of what went on when a committee produced it so we would have to know the real intention. It should be quite black and white.
It's another thing when speaking of the Bible for certainly no one living today was there when it was written. History and knowledge of background are essential in knowing what the Bible says to us as Christians.
Is it asking too much of the GA and the PC (USA) at large to just simply take time to say what you really mean instead of using wishy-washy language that has to be interpreted and thus brought into legal challenages?
The references to ex-gays perfectly illustrate my point. It is my experience as a gay man in exploring the ex-gay movement is it's existence is based on the idea that there is really not such thing as a gay person to begin with. A gay person is simply confused. The gay person is really hetero as God created the gay person to be. So if that be the case, how can one supporting ex-gays support a confession that includes the word "homosexual perversion"? The fact is that homosexuals do not exist in their world. It is a case of good heterosexuals who have gone astray. The more accurate word in the confession would be "heterosexual perversion".
Maybe the PC (USA) will eventually be clearer in it's talk and walk about LGBT persons. I'm quite hopeful and thus am committed to staying around until this happens. I think more positives are happening these days than the negatives in the past.
Yours in Christ,
Earl Apel
Deacon, Mount Auburn Presbyterian, Church
Ciincinnati, OH
Response from Earl Apel,
June 27, 2008
...
First of all I thank you and the Outlook for the great coverage of the GA. I happened to get an email alert from the Outlook a couple of weeks ago about GA and that is why I viisited the site.
I found the language change in the Heidelberg Catechism interesting. What I've discovered as a gay man in the PC (USA) is that things tend to be so wishy-washy and not so clear. So unlike Presbyterians that want the i's dotted and the t's crossed. Even knowing the background of the Heidelberg C. if one were to just simply read it without knowing the history, I from my perspective would have to ask what is "homosexual perversion"? The fact the two terms are together implies that there can exist a "homosexual non-perversion". I think most Presbyterians would agree that there is heterosexual perversion and thus we also have heterosexual non-perversion.
Taking the role of the ordinary person in the pew, it seems to me that our constitution (BoO and Confessions) should be clear enough that we don't have to have knowledge of what went on when a committee produced it so we would have to know the real intention. It should be quite black and white.
It's another thing when speaking of the Bible for certainly no one living today was there when it was written. History and knowledge of background are essential in knowing what the Bible says to us as Christians.
Is it asking too much of the GA and the PC (USA) at large to just simply take time to say what you really mean instead of using wishy-washy language that has to be interpreted and thus brought into legal challenages?
The references to ex-gays perfectly illustrate my point. It is my experience as a gay man in exploring the ex-gay movement is it's existence is based on the idea that there is really not such thing as a gay person to begin with. A gay person is simply confused. The gay person is really hetero as God created the gay person to be. So if that be the case, how can one supporting ex-gays support a confession that includes the word "homosexual perversion"? The fact is that homosexuals do not exist in their world. It is a case of good heterosexuals who have gone astray. The more accurate word in the confession would be "heterosexual perversion".
Maybe the PC (USA) will eventually be clearer in it's talk and walk about LGBT persons. I'm quite hopeful and thus am committed to staying around until this happens. I think more positives are happening these days than the negatives in the past.
Yours in Christ,
Earl Apel
Deacon, Mount Auburn Presbyterian, Church
Ciincinnati, OH
...
First of all I thank you and the Outlook for the great coverage of the GA. I happened to get an email alert from the Outlook a couple of weeks ago about GA and that is why I viisited the site.
I found the language change in the Heidelberg Catechism interesting. What I've discovered as a gay man in the PC (USA) is that things tend to be so wishy-washy and not so clear. So unlike Presbyterians that want the i's dotted and the t's crossed. Even knowing the background of the Heidelberg C. if one were to just simply read it without knowing the history, I from my perspective would have to ask what is "homosexual perversion"? The fact the two terms are together implies that there can exist a "homosexual non-perversion". I think most Presbyterians would agree that there is heterosexual perversion and thus we also have heterosexual non-perversion.
Taking the role of the ordinary person in the pew, it seems to me that our constitution (BoO and Confessions) should be clear enough that we don't have to have knowledge of what went on when a committee produced it so we would have to know the real intention. It should be quite black and white.
It's another thing when speaking of the Bible for certainly no one living today was there when it was written. History and knowledge of background are essential in knowing what the Bible says to us as Christians.
Is it asking too much of the GA and the PC (USA) at large to just simply take time to say what you really mean instead of using wishy-washy language that has to be interpreted and thus brought into legal challenages?
The references to ex-gays perfectly illustrate my point. It is my experience as a gay man in exploring the ex-gay movement is it's existence is based on the idea that there is really not such thing as a gay person to begin with. A gay person is simply confused. The gay person is really hetero as God created the gay person to be. So if that be the case, how can one supporting ex-gays support a confession that includes the word "homosexual perversion"? The fact is that homosexuals do not exist in their world. It is a case of good heterosexuals who have gone astray. The more accurate word in the confession would be "heterosexual perversion".
Maybe the PC (USA) will eventually be clearer in it's talk and walk about LGBT persons. I'm quite hopeful and thus am committed to staying around until this happens. I think more positives are happening these days than the negatives in the past.
Yours in Christ,
Earl Apel
Deacon, Mount Auburn Presbyterian, Church
Ciincinnati, OH
Write a Response
In this post when you talk about retranslating the catechism you completely neglect to mention the significant voices who oppose this move http://www.ga2008.com/index.ph...temid=183, namely Bruce McCormack and E. David Willis from PTS, both representing the prestigious Charles Hodge Chair of Systematic Theology.
You also neglect to mention that the text that was added in the 1960s was the full citation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and not just some random reference to "homosexual perversion."
You were certainly right to muse if the votes about a human sexuality curriculum and the HC were harbingers for later votes on homosexuality in the church. That being said were the opposing voices wrong to be concerned about the "progressive"/liberal agenda?