The Elephant in the Convention Center

It’s now time to address perhaps the most controversial issue before the 220^th General Assembly: the issue of same gender marriage. But first, a few obvious observations.

Context is profoundly important.

A conversation is a very different thing than a public speech, or a sermon. With a small group of friends (or even strangers), our style is more relaxed and we are able to make subtle points much more easily. Likewise, sermons preached to small congregations are much different than sermons to large groups; before a multitude, one must speak slowly and broadly, and certain subtleties are easily lost.

This is also true when it comes to the deliberations of councils within the church.

It is much easier to make subtle distinctions in the context of a Session meeting, where there is a built in reservoir of trust, and explanations are much easier to make and hear. At the general assembly level, there is no subtlety, and trust is often in short supply.

The Committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues came to three important decisions in their deliberations. First of all, they recommended the rejection of so-called ‘relief of conscience’ overtures, designed to give Presbyterian ministers tacit permission to conduct same gender marriages in places where they are legal. Secondly, they recommended that presbyteries be directed to engage in a serious two-year study of the nature of Christian marriage; but in order to ensure that discussion would be undertaken with the diligence they believe is necessary, they made their third recommendation: that marriage be redefined in our Book of Order, from being a civil contract between a man and a woman to being between two persons.

Aimee Moiso, a teaching elder from San Jose Presbytery was the chair of the committee, and it was clear to me from her presentation that the committee’s intent in recommending this change to the Book of Order was to prompt a discussion – to provide for the largest possible forum in which the Holy Spirit might operate as the church seeks discernment about this issue. This would have been the functional equivalent of moving a proposal at a Session meeting, for the purpose of opening it up for discussion. But I’m afraid, in the cavernous expanse of Plenary, that subtle point was lost on many commissioners, and would almost certainly have been missed by most congregations, not to mention every media outlet in the country. As it turned out, the debate lasted for several hours before the assembly voted 338-308 against the committee proposal to change the constitution, agreeing instead to commend the two years study by itself.

This will be no easy task.

The culture around us is changing: more and more localities permit same gender marriage, while most churches do not. As evidenced by the tenor of debate at General Assembly, many Presbyterians have strong and deep convictions about the issue, and find the notion of dialogue and discernment almost nonsensical. Pastor to Pittsburgh Presbytery Sheldon Sorge has written, I believe our chances of exercising real spiritual discernment are much better when we’re seeking the Lord’s will not because we are arming for a vote, but simply because it’s what God calls us to do.


I pray he’s right.