United Presbyterian Church: Deciding the Homosexual Issue

A question to the 1976 United Presbyterian Church (UPC) General Assembly set off a burst of evangelical energy that peaked last month when the denomination’s top governing body said a loud “no” to the ordination of practicing homosexuals. The 1978 assembly, meeting in San Diego, California, voted overwhelmingly for a twelve-page committee report that included “definitive guidance” for New York City Presbytery, the UPC regional unit that had asked for direction concerning William Silver, a self-affirmed homosexual candidate for the ministry under its care. Out of the ensuing denominational discussion and uproar came communication and cooperation among evangelicals unprecedented in this generation.

“On the basis of our understanding that the practice of homosexuality is sin,” said the assembly’s pronouncement, “we are concerned that homosexual believers and the observing world should not be left in doubt about the church’s mind on this issue [any longer].” The majority of the 650 commissioners (delegates) said in the document that dialogue and study of the issue should continue but that ordination of unrepentant homosexuals as church leaders should not be allowed.

About five hours of floor debate preceded the decisive vote, but it represented only a tiny fraction of the discussion and controversy that has spread throughout the 2.57 million-member denomination. At the national level the debate was led by a nineteen-member study task force authorized by the 1976 assembly. The release of its report and recommendations in January (see February 10 issue, page 48) sparked intensive talk about homosexuality in regional and local Presbyterian bodies, as well as in national church agencies. The task force majority recommended that otherwise qualified homosexuals be accepted for ordination. A minority report advised against it.

Nearly one-third of the denomination’s 152 presbyteries (regional governing bodies) took the trouble to send formal communications to the assembly on the ordination question. None of the overtures (petitions) or resolutions asked for the opening of church office for unrepentant gays, and most registered opposition. A few sought more study, postponement of a decision, or simply preservation of the regional and local prerogatives in officer selection. Another indicator of the grassroots interest in the controversy was the flood of documents produced by individual Presbyterians, by local church governing bodies (sessions), and by a variety of unofficial organizations. William P. Thompson, the denomination’s stated clerk (chief executive officer) since 1966, admitted that the outpouring of mail on this issue had been exceeded only by the 6,000 messages he got after a 1970 grant to the Angela Davis defense fund.

Another sign of the intense interest in the issue across the church was the formation of an “evangelical coalition” to defeat the proposals from the task force majority. Included were the Presbyterian Lay Committee, the Presbyterians United for Biblical Concerns, and the Presbyterian Charismatic Communion. The activity of some of the denomination’s “big steeple” pastors in opposition to homosexual ordination (see March 10 issue, page 62) was another indicator of sharp local concern about the proposal.

Opponents of the task force majority’s recommendations capitalized on the unrest throughout the church as the presbyteries elected their commissioners to the assembly. The regional bodies often send representatives simply because their names come up on a rotation roster, but this year many presbyteries chose individuals on the basis of their announced positions on the homosexual question. Pittsburgh Presbytery’s questioning of candidates on this issue was challenged in the denomination’s courts, but it was sustained. Complainants in the case (including Gail Buchwalter, a member of the task force majority) had alleged that the procedure violated this provision of the assembly manual: “Commissioners must not be elected to the General Assembly with either a direct or a tacit understanding as to how they will speak or vote on any pending subject.”

Prior to the Pittsburgh elections the nominees had been asked, “What is your opinion at this moment as to whether or not avowed homosexuals should be ordained?” One nominee, James E. Ray, did not declare himself opposed to ordination, and he lost the election to John Huffman, pastor of the Pittsburgh First Presbyterian Church. In ruling on the case (in which Ray was also a complainant), the Permanent Judicial Commission drew a distinction between “an election process which extracts a pledge or commitment … and a procedure which merely allows members of a presbytery to be informed as to the present attitudes, beliefs, and philosophies of nominees.…” The commission decision added: “To prohibit members of a presbytery from making inquiry of nominees … would result in depriving presbytery members of a right to make a meaningful and intelligent choice in their election of commissioners. If such is to be disallowed, a purely mechanical system might more intelligently be substituted.”

Prayer For ‘William Smith’

There’s a new twist in the Church of England’s ongoing controversy over the ordination of women: the vicar of a Yorkshire parish underwent a sex change operation last month.

The middle-aged and unmarried clergyman, whose name was not disclosed by church officials, had intended to continue his work despite the operation, according to informed sources. He was reportedly a dedicated pastor whose ministry was highly esteemed by his parishioners. After lengthy talks involving Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggan, however, he was urged to resign. He did so on the grounds of ill health and moved to another part of England.

Prayer for him was recently requested by his bishop, who earlier had refused to discuss the matter. In a message to Christians, Bishop Robert Martineau said: “If you pray for ‘William Smith,’ Almighty God will know for whom the prayer is made.”

J. D. DOUGLAS

Election of commissioners opposed to ordination of homosexuals was the chief accomplishment of the loose coalition. Votes on other assembly issues illustrated that the coalition could not deliver a majority of the votes for the “conservative” side despite a groundswell of evangelical interest on many fronts. This was demonstrated early in the meeting when three ballots were required to elect a moderator. Though the moderator has the responsibility for naming chairmen of committees and for making other decisions that affect the assembly’s handling of controversial material, the anti-ordination forces did not agree on a candidate to back. Of the total of six candidates, the winner, pastor William P. Lytle of San Antonio, was not considered the most “conservative.” His presbytery, Alamo, was one of the few that asked the denomination’s national governing body to continue studying the homosexual question.

In a question-and-answer session just prior to the vote, Lytle impressed the commissioners as an easy-going but frank pastor who backs the denominational program. His nominator, pastor Wesley G. Baker, formerly a national church executive, portrayed his candidate as a missionary. Lytle served as pastor of small churches in rural New Mexico and as a home missions executive in the Arkansas Ozarks before moving to his urban pastorate in 1973. He served on the denomination’s foreign missions board, with special assignments in Latin America. Among them were helping to negotiate the turnover of property from missions to national churches in Chile, Cuba, and Mexico.

At a news conference following his election Lytle, 54, identified himself as a “conservative evangelical” with a broad view of the mission of the church that includes espousal of social action “consistent” with that theology. In statements circulated in advance to all commissioners, he indicated his approval of proposed assembly statements on the family farm and disarmament. Both the disarmament pronouncement and the farm document (criticized by some speakers as pro-union and anti-business) passed. On the homosexual controversy Lytle said in advance of the assembly debate that he hoped the body would not espouse the position of those at either extreme.

The new moderator’s “middle course” route was tested in a dramatic moment just after midnight on the assembly’s last full day of deliberations. The assembly cast a tie vote (267 to 267) on a proposal to initiate a constitutional amendment requiring local churches to put women on their sessions (boards of elders). Under the rules Lytle could have broken the deadlock. Instead, he called for a recount which resulted in a 277 to 271 decision to send the matter to the presbyteries for their vote. If a majority approves, the amendment will be added to the constitution. The action was taken despite stated clerk Thompson’s opinion that the provision, as written, is unenforceable and despite warnings that such a mandate would further alienate those who conscientiously oppose women’s ordination.

Deciding to amend the constitution to require female elders was in marked contrast to the assembly’s treatment of the homosexual ordination issue. The task force that studied the issue for nearly two years decided unanimously not to ask for a constitutional amendment, even though some presbyteries asked the assembly to amend the basic law to explicitly preclude ordination of avowed, practicing homosexuals. The principal argument against such a change was that it would tamper with the historic rights of local and regional bodies in choosing their officers (including deacons and elders in the congregations). There is no explicit mention of homosexuality in the current constitution, but officers are supposed to be “blameless in life and sound in faith” and “examples to the flock.” Presbyterians ordain lay elders and deacons as well as ministers, and the ordination vows are similar. The guidance statement applies to laity as well as clergy.

The task force majority also ruled out the possibility of proposing an “authoritative interpretation” of the constitution. The minority report asked for such an interpretation that would specify “self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons may not be ordained,” but the committee considering the report in San Diego did not go along with this approach. Even though the clear majority of the assembly committee went along with the task force minority’s view that homosexuals should not be ordained, they followed the task force majority’s suggestion that only “guidance” should be given to the presbyteries. The task force minority had warned that simple advice would be “uncertain and ineffectual.” Speaking for the majority on the assembly committee, pastor Thomas W. Gillespie of Burlingame, California, explained that the advice could be expected to have more “staying power” than a constitutional amendment or interpretation.

Huffman, who had won a seat in the assembly in the contested Pittsburgh vote, also won a seat on the assembly committee considering the homosexuality issue. When an attempt was made from the floor to substitute the task force minority’s report (including the recommendation of a constitutional interpretation) for the assembly committee’s compromise document, he spoke in favor of the assembly committee’s recommendations. He added that the five members of the task force minority had participated in the redrafting at San Diego and that they concurred with the new language. Only a few votes were cast for the proposal to substitute.

A key figure in the assembly’s handling of the explosive issue was Josiah Beeman, a veteran political operative who once headed the denomination’s Washington office. He was appointed by Lytle to chair the committee considering the homosexual question. Formerly associated with various liberal politicians, Beeman now directs the Washington lobbying efforts of the State of California. He told the assembly that his committee tried to operate by “consensus and straw votes” until the final hours of its deliberations. One open hearing featured a parade of homosexuals and ex-homosexuals, testifying to their understanding of faith and its relation to their practice. Hundreds of commissioners and interested outsiders attended the session. Later, when Beeman called for straw votes on substantive issues, an overwhelming majority of his panel agreed with the initial proposition that homosexual activity is sinful.

Beeman’s pivotal position was pointed up after the assembly had decisively voted against accepting minority reports from his committee. With the majority’s proposal under consideration, attempts were then made to weaken the report with amendments from the floor. John T. Conner, the Oregon campus pastor who is immediate past moderator, introduced what some observers described as a “grandfather clause” to protect the ordination rights of any United Presbyterian “deacons, elders, and ministers who have been ordained prior to this date.”

From the platform, Beeman accepted the proposal on behalf of his committee, thus incorporating it into his report. His move required opponents of the Conner amendment to take the initiative to test the proposal on the floor. Despite their arguments that the addition would “destroy” the overall effect of the report by exempting some officers from church discipline, commissioners voted about 3 to 2 to keep the Conner addition.

The whole idea of discipline over the issue of homosexual practice found little sympathy in the assembly, lest the church be accused of participating in “witch hunts.” The document as finally approved urges committees considering candidates for office “to conduct their examination of candidates … with discretion and sensitivity, recognizing that it would be a hindrance to God’s grace to make a specific inquiry into the sexual orientation or practice of candidates for ordained officers where the person involved has not taken the initiative in declaring his or her sexual orientation.” The statement calls on United Presbyterians to “reject in their own lives, and challenge in others, the sin of homophobia, which drives homosexual persons away from Christ and his church.”

The assembly also reaffirmed a 1970 action calling for the decriminalization of private homosexual acts between consenting adults,” and it asked members of the denomination to “work for the passage of laws that prohibit discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations based on the sexual orientation of a person.”

After the final vote of approval for the whole report, a protest was registered from the floor by Laura Jervis. She identified herself as chairperson of the committee on candidates in the New York City Presbytery, the body that originally asked for “guidance.” She expressed a determination to return home “committed to work for liberation, continuing to struggle together with our gay sisters and brothers, ordained or not, who are already ministers of Christ with us.” She said that the assembly, in standing for civil rights for homosexuals, had “absurdly” asked “the culture to be more gracious and free than we are willing to be ourselves.”

William Silver, 30, the New York City Presbytery’s candidate whose homosexuality initiated the request for guidance, told reporters that he would continue to seek ordination. The New York Times quoted him as saying, “If anything, this action will probably make the New York Presbytery more anxious to support me’ Beeman indicated to journalists that the decision clearly puts the issue back into the hands of the presbyteries. If a presbytery goes against the assembly’s guidance and ordains a homosexual, he speculated, the question would then come back to the assembly through an appeal in the church’s judicial system.

After all motions pertaining to the issue had been handled, moderator Lytle called leaders on two sides of the question to the lectern to lead in prayer. One was Chris Glaser of Los Angeles, a member of the task force majority and leader of the unofficial gay caucus of Presbyterians. The other was Richard Lovelace, professor at Gordon-Conwell Seminary and a member of the task force minority. Both Lovelace, principal writer of the minority report, and Old Testament professor Byron E. Shafer of Fordham, the principal majority writer, were thanked for their assistance in drafting the final report of the assembly committee’s majority.

At issue in the homosexuality study and debate was the method of Bible interpretation being used by the various sides. Members of the task force majority had questioned whether the Bible clearly forbids all homosexual activity. The background paper, written by Shafer, noted that the denomination “is by no means of one mind on the subject of biblical authority and interpretation.” There are so many views that the “discussion is not so much dialogue as decalogue!”

Another committee, a panel on pluralism, reported to the assembly a similar view: “Of all the factors that contribute to divisiveness in our denomination, the committee found that none is more pervasive or fundamental than the question of how the Scriptures are to be interpreted.” This committee recommended that a task force be assembled to study the various ways of understanding biblical authority, a measure that was finally approved after it was specified that the study group was to be “theologically balanced.” Its final report is due in 1981.

From the same committee on pluralism the assembly got a report that 45 per cent of the denomination’s ministerial candidates are in non-Presbyterian seminaries. Presbyteries were advised to urge candidates to be received under their care before beginning seminary education. A floor amendment adopted by the assembly also urged formation of United Presbyterian faculty-student organizations in the non-Presbyterian seminaries.

The pluralism panel’s report sketched the road ahead for the denomination when it declared: “We perceive in the denomination today a wish to preserve our peace and unity at almost any cost, by smothering our differences or pretending they do not matter. There is evidence, too, of widespread misunderstanding of our polity and of failure to use it in good faith. Of all the committee’s findings, perhaps the most profound is that our differences will never disappear. The very nature of our church is pluralistic and gives certainty to those differences.”

The Kirk: Breaking Tradition

The Church of Scotland, affectionately referred to as the Kirk, is the tradition-encrusted mother church of English-language Presbyterianism around the world. Its moderators, clergy chosen to chair the annual general assembly sessions, wear garb reminiscent of founder John Knox’s day as they rule over assembly proceedings, and a degree of pomp has accrued to the office over the years. Correspondent J. D. Douglas, who lives in St. Andrews, Scotland, annually files a colorful report of the Kirk assembly. The following is his edited account of last month’s assembly.

The establishment had an unusually rough ride at this year’s Church of Scotland general assembly in Edinburgh. The main surprise came when against the arguments of a number of former moderators the 1,400-strong house voted to replace the existing forty-seven church committees with a small number of boards. The proposal is to form a sixteen-member assembly council whose fulltime executive would become effectively general secretary of the Kirk.

Another oblique dig was aimed at exmoderators (unkindly referred to by some as “geriatric grenadiers”) when the assembly also set up a special committee to examine the election and the role of the moderator. For some years it had been felt that the procedure for filling the one-year tenure was “undemocratic”—one school of thought advocated the drawing of lots, adducing good biblical warrant. The moderatorial role, moreover, had produced criticism when one or two recent incumbents had taken it upon themselves to make controversial statements while holding an office that basically calls only for chairmanship of the assembly, and which in no sense authorizes the moderator to make off-the-cuff policy declarations on behalf of the church.

The unexpected figured also in the scheme (plan) of union with Scottish Methodists. This would have been the first union since the Reformation between different denominations in a land regarded by some as an ecumenical backwater. Strong opposition from within the Kirk had been forecast by the Kirk’s own magazine. Many felt that the plan would flounder on the same rocks that had sunk earlier schemes with Anglicans and Congregationalists. Somehow the expected opposition failed to materialize in the assembly in any substantial degree, and the plan was approved by a large majority.

History was not to be made, however, for word came that the two Scottish Methodist synods, meeting at the same time, had by a 114 to 55 vote thrown out the invitation of their Presbyterian suitor. Methodist chairman Harry Tennant told a subsequent press conference that it was not doctrine that had proved the stumbling-block but fear that the 10,000 Methodists would be swallowed up by the million-plus Presbyterians. Shortly afterwards, the convener of the Kirk’s Inter-Church Relations Committee, Professor James Whyte, said his committee members believed that “organic unity” was no longer a helpful concept, and that this kind of language should now be dispensed with.

The assembly, with its sessions reduced for the first time to one week, also:

• sought “urgent” talks with Roman Catholics over the perennial problem of mixed marriages.

• called for a study of the Unification Church (“the One World Crusade which expounds the teaching of Mr. Sun Moon”), two of whose supporters were refused permission to address the assembly from the public gallery.

• heard that there were only fifty-nine new ministers last year to replace 195 lost through death and retirement, and heard that Kirk membership had declined by more than 17,000 in the past year.

• gave more support than usual to the pacifist lobby, with special reference to the neutron bomb, after impassioned pleas by two ex-moderators, both holders of the Military Cross. The Church and Nation committee’s reluctant support for retention of the nuclear deterrent was nevertheless upheld, but the assembly did condemn the activities of British arms salesmen.

• supported a boycott on South African goods.

• sent a protest to the Soviet Ambassador over the severe sentence imposed on dissident Yuri Orlov.

• appointed as moderator Peter Brodie of Alloa.

Even though from the public gallery a female voice was heard to point out loudly that “Jesus was a layman,” the assembly voted against a motion that would have allowed presbyteries to consider the appointment of elders as moderators of church courts, posts now limited to clergy.

Meanwhile, across the road in the assembly of the much smaller Free Church of Scotland, moderator Hugh Ferrier lashed out at “our drink-sodden and sex-ridden society,” and he denounced Britain’s abortion law. Professor Clement Graham was appointed principal of the church’s theological college, and the assembly agreed to appoint an evangelist whose task would be to take the Gospel to people living in areas of Scotland where the work and witness of the Free Church are little known. The assembly was reminded that “the principle of returning to the Lord one-tenth still holds good” and that “the state takes at least three-tenths.” The Church of Scotland, having also discussed the matter of tithing, had settled for one-twentieth as a starting point.

Going and Growing: The Policy Works

Overseas missions executive Louis L. King of the Christian and Missionary Alliance (CMA) was elected president of the 113,000-member denomination at its general council meeting in Birmingham last month. Chosen on the first ballot by the record 2,100 delegates, he will assume office on August 1, succeeding Nathan Bailey, who has held the CMA’s top executive position for eighteen years. Bailey had announced earlier that he would not seek reelection.

King is the seventh president in the history of the CMA, which was founded ninety years ago by Presbyterian minister A. B. Simpson as a missions-promoting interdenominational fellowship. The new president’s vocational background includes several pastorates in North America and missionary service in India. He has headed CMA overseas work since 1956.

In his final report as president, Bailey noted that during his administration the CMA had a 35 per cent increase in the number of churches at home (to 1,561) and 150 per cent abroad (to 6,827 plus nearly 1,000 other preaching and meeting points). Membership at home increased” 65 per cent, and overseas it shot up 155 per cent (to about 333,000 baptized members plus nearly that many more adherents). Giving for denominational causes climbed 285 per cent (to $12.6 million last year).

With a total constituency approaching 200,000, the CMA is one of the fastest growing denominations in North America, and its per capita missions giving is among the highest. Nearly 1,000 CMA missionaries have assignments in forty-six countries, where some 5,500 national workers are also serving full-time.

King, a leader in evangelical mission circles, is a firm believer in the CMA’s “three-self” policy for overseas churches: self-government, self-support, and selfpropagation. He advocates liberation of overseas churches from dependence on American dollars. The policy has enabled the CMA to devote more money to new ministry projects, especially in urban areas, and to radio and other specialized work. It has also helped in shoring up missionary salaries and services against the onslaught of double-digit inflation and the sharp dollar devaluation in many countries.

The policy seems to be working. For example, lay leader Philip Lee, who heads the Foreign Missionary Society of the CMA s Hong Kong churches, told a council audience that the Hong Kong churches have sent out and are supporting thirty-five missionaries in a number of countries. Said he: “The best way we can hope to repay the work of American missionaries who have come to us with the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to reach out on our own to those yet unreached.”

A Hoax

Will it ever end? Letters protesting a nonexistent threat to religious broadcasting are still pouring into the mailroom of the Federal Communications Commission in Washington at the rate of about 12,000 a day, according to FCC officials. The letters—nearly eight million so far—are sent in the mistaken belief that atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair has petitioned the FCC to ban religious broadcasting. Pamphlets and mimeographed petitions containing the O’Hair rumor have been widely circulated among church groups. These materials urge concerned individuals to register their protest with the FCC.

Many religious publications and broadcasters have warned their readers of the hoax, and embarrassed church leaders are trying to spread the word, but still the letters come.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.