When critiquing American churches, opinion writers often adopt a form of historicism even Hegel would just barely accept—a philosophic stance that no doubt drives their chiding of churches as “behind the times” or “on the wrong side of history.” The same gives them the gall to patronize Christians when their churches, at long last, “catch up” with the moral Zeitgeist, yielding to secularist pressures. With wedge issues like abortion, contraception, same-sex matters, and divorce, 20th century secular culture relentlessly picked away at the integrity (especially) of mainline Protestant denominations, often forcing a choice outright between the gospel and the evanescent moral spirit of the age.
One of the more disquieting features of the progressive view of history is its subtle drive to sway opinion by brute force, substituted for reason. As the argument might go, “X will eventually happen anyway, so we might as well put it into place now.” Formally, it makes even less sense: “X is very likely to happen. Therefore it should happen.” A worse garbling of facts and values is rarely accomplished in the culture wars.
Incremental compromise has been a popular method of executing progressivist brute force aims for mainline Protestant churches, and sometimes it leads to strikingly odd compromises.
Minneapolis’ Star Tribune reported the other day that Presbyterian Church (USA) leaders have bestowed their blessing on noncelibate gay and lesbian clergy, but have nonetheless withheld approval of same-sex marriages within their denomination. The fact this is an incremental compromise is evidenced by the logical incompatibility of the two decisions: If gay romance is not only ethical but healthy and appropriate for spiritual leaders, how can it not be enshrined in a church marriage?
Still stranger is the somewhat, well, presbyterial impulse at work in the church leaders’ close vote: Members of the Presbyterian Church (USA) could, if they felt strongly enough about the issue of gay clergy, simply start a new denomination and avoid the cumbersome process of clergy straw polls on matters of natural law. One supposes the confines of Riverside Drive feel too much like an ideological ghetto, though, and that uprooting the moral theology of Christianity is the real heart of the affair.
July 12th, 2010 | 3:43 pm
The logic of the Presbyterian decision not to authorize blessing gay unions is found in the fact that the proposal to bless gay marriage was very narrowly defeated. Moreover, the PUSA church explicitly already allows pastors and churches to bless same-sex unions as long as they are not blessed as literal marriages. So, the PUSA already blesses some form of same-sex unions. Further, most churches that bless gay marriages started along the road by first removing any prohibitions against gay clergy, although the Lutherans did it simultaneously last year. It is clear that the PUSA is very, very close to blessing full-fledge gay marriage, and the delay won’t be long.
July 12th, 2010 | 4:02 pm
Dude, it’s 100 Witherspoon Street in Louisville, Kentucky, … we haven’t been on Riverside Drive for over 20 years, unless you’re referring to the National Council of Churches offices, which are at 475 Riverside Drive.
July 12th, 2010 | 4:04 pm
From the linked article:
“‘The heart of marriage is the love and commitment between two people,’ Edwards said. ‘That’s what scripture teaches. Two men or two women can show all the love and commitment we recognize as marriage.’”
One can make a legal case for same-sex marriage, or perhaps a civil rights case for it, I suppose (though I’d probably still disagree). But a Biblical case? I’m still confused by that one. Every way I look at it, Scripture seems pretty clear on what marriage is, like it or not. But then again, I’m not one of these “studying” Presbyterians.
July 12th, 2010 | 6:25 pm
Sure, someone’s argument might go that way. But it’s neither productive nor honest to be attacking straw men.
July 13th, 2010 | 12:00 am
One of the more disquieting features of the progressive view of history is its subtle drive to sway opinion by brute force, substituted for reason. As the argument might go, “X will eventually happen anyway, so we might as well put it into place now.”
I agree with Janice: can you point to a specific person of any prominence who has advanced such an argument? It seems to me you quote is typically part of a longer argument and you have taken it out of context and treated it as the entirety of the argument. Liberals don’t support gay marriage because it “will eventually happen anyway” — they support it because they think it is the right thing to do.
This goes to the heart of the — if you will — dialectic between conservative and liberal tendencies. Conservatives by definition favor gradual and controlled change — some things shouldn’t change at all while others should change slowly. Liberals tends to think if something should happen in the future, then we should seriously consider doing it today.
As a bonus, here is part of right-leaning Republican Everett Dirksen’s speech in support of the Civil Rights Act delivered on the floor of the Senate (with emphasis added):
“It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, ‘Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.’ The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied.”
July 13th, 2010 | 12:21 am
Janice,
My example would only qualify as a straw man if it attempted to misrepresent the opposing position by knocking down one of its weaker arguments. I didn’t do this here, but merely mentioned the argument because it served as an example for the larger point I made.
July 13th, 2010 | 1:19 am
My example would only qualify as a straw man if it attempted to misrepresent the opposing position by knocking down one of its weaker arguments. I didn’t do this here, but merely mentioned the argument because it served as an example for the larger point I made.
So then what exactly is the “progressivist brute force” you mention and what are some actual (not strawman) statements or arguments made by the people engaging in such brute force as you understand them?
July 13th, 2010 | 9:56 am
Janice and Mark,
You really don’t have to do much more than read the linked article to find an example of the kind of argument that Mr. Staley-Joyce has pointed to:
“Bolbach said. ‘Let’s say you have gay or lesbian members of your congregation who want to get married. The law allows it. What are they supposed to do?’ The Presbyterians’ discussion was ‘a reflection of what’s going on in the secular world,’ she said.”
I read that as a kind of supine “Hey, everybody outside the church is doing this. Isn’t it time we caught up with them?” After all, the law specifically exempts religious organizations from performing those ceremonies, so it is not a matter of legal pressure to perform them. The pressure is entirely a matter of cultural trending. In short, the surrounding culture becomes a measure of the correctness of church doctrine, and not the other way around.
Furthermore, even if it is hard to find a published statement that exactly matches Mr. Staley-Joyce’s syllogism, the underlying logic is precisely what drives the many undecided people in the pews to support these kind of decisions. They may themselves be uncomfortable with the decision and they may not see how it fits with what they learned about the Bible growing up, but it does seem to be the way society is moving. So while they won’t themselves push for the new direction, they’ll go along with it. I have heard this privately expressed on more than one occasion.
July 13th, 2010 | 11:44 am
[...] has commented on the Presbyterian’s recent decision to approve of practicing homosexual clergy, a move that will only divide an already divided body [...]
July 13th, 2010 | 3:09 pm
The ‘Constitution’ of the PC(USA) explicitly forbids the ordination of anyone who does not practice “chastity in singleness and fidelity in marriage”. What the commissioners (not “leaders” but simply representatives from each presbytery) did was recommend that the standard be changed — a change that must be approved by a vote of more than 60% of the Presbyteries in the denomination. That change has been recommended numerous times in the last 30 years and has been rejected EVERY SINGLE TIME. Now I will grant that the votes have been closer lately and it may well be that at some point this denomination will in fact “bestow their blessing on noncelibate gay and lesbian clergy” but that day has not yet arrived.
And btw — the snarkiness of the last paragraph is both ignorant and a slap in the face to members of the clergy of the Presbyterian Church like myself, who have labored to remain faithful to Biblical standards and uphold them in our denomination.
July 13th, 2010 | 6:34 pm
David,
I am, of course, grateful for the clarification, and did indeed read that this vote was but the first step in a larger process. There’s a certain objectivity I lack as a non-Presbyterian in identifying precisely who speaks for your denomination, but it’s hard to disregard a close vote by people who at least claim to represent Presbyterianism. For the purposes of my remark above, I bracketed the question of PC(USA) decision-making rubrics, since I was more concerned with the outcome of the gay clergy vote. That said, I’m more than happy to revise my line from “Presbyterian Church (USA) leaders bestow blessing on gay clergy” to “Presbyterian representatives cast majority vote in favor of gay clergy.” A little more accurate, yes, but does it really change the substance of my posting?
What remains clear from the vote is that the group of Americans who self-identify as Presbyterians (and their spiritual leaders) maintain sharply divided views on at least one weighty matter in moral theology. This problem can be found in every cross-section of Christian individuals, but with the case of Presbyterianism and other Protestant denominations, it’s just not possible to claim there is an “official Presbyterian view” of, say, openly gay clergy. In fact, the existence of an “official Presbyterian view” would seem to disregard the heart of what makes Protestantism protestant: that matters of theology entertained by the church ultimately fall to individual Christians to sort out. Protestant churches can’t impose theological beliefs on their members under threat of expulsion from Christianity, but only expulsion from a particular denomination, for instance. So it’s hard for me to see why either the pro- or anti-gay clergy view is any more Presbyterian than the other, or whether your (in my opinion) sound view on the matter is orthodox or heterodox, strictly by Presbyterian standards.
I’m therefore confused by your weighing of the PC(USA) constitution against the divided vote on gay clergy. Clearly, an established constitution is weightier than any single vote. But at the same time, the fact that a church’s confessional position on a grave matter of the (unchanging) moral law has frequently been subject to reversal leads me to believe the constitution may not be viewed with as much authority as you ascribe to it. I’m not referring to the mere existence of dissent from the constitution, or even the closeness of the vote; I’m pointing to the very fact that a vote is allowed on a matter of moral law after it has been settled by a constitution. That a constitution doesn’t settle the moral law once and for all fits my thesis about churchmen who conform Christian doctrines to the moral spirit of their age, as if the act of casting votes might change what behaviors Christians may consider right and wrong.
On your second note, I’ll admit to sarcasm directed at those who think the moral law can be changed (or at least updated) via voting, but otherwise only to mystification at how my remark could be construed as a “slap in the face” to anyone, much less to those who have “labored to remain faithful to Biblical standards.”
Laboring to be faithful to the gospel is good, but I think voting on the moral law is not biblically justifiable, and is not an appropriate manner of executing your admirable labor for the gospel. But there’s no ad hominem content to that–it’s merely a difference between my ecclesiology and yours, not a slap in the face or a measure of ignorance of the usefulness of voting on theology.
July 14th, 2010 | 9:40 am
Mr. Staley-Joyce, thank you for your long and thoughtful reply to my comment. I want to begin by noting my agreement with you that an historical ‘weakness’ of Protestantism (as opposed to Roman Catholicism) is the lack of a comprehensive body of authority (‘magesterium’?) to which one can appeal as final arbiter in times like these. The effect is, as you say, to introduce an element of subjectivity in to decisions about the moral and ethical standards of that body. I can’t, frankly, offer much of a defense except to say that the practice does offer some advantages from a Protestant perspective — namely the ability to respond (relatively quickly in historical terms) to perceived errors and correct them. The long and complicated history of attitudes and practices toward chattel slavery is one such example. It took the Roman Catholic Church much longer in historical terms to issue an outright condemnation of the practice. I don’t offer that as a criticism per se — my own denomination split over the issue in 1838, but it is one example…
I guess the larger point is to say that I do differ with you in your assertion that one view cannot be said to be ‘more Presbyterian’ than another. The fact is that we Presbyterians do have a body of canon law (if you will) that expressly forbids the ordination of non-celibate gay persons. That is the authoritative standard of the PC(USA). We do not allow the practice and Presbyteries and individuals that violate the standard are subject to church discipline. Yes it is subject to change by vote, and yes we personally agree that (in the case of homosexual behavior) it should not be as it clearly violates Biblical standards (and natural law). But to argue that the effect is the same is, in my view, to overstate the case. Right now, at least (and there’s the rub), one cannot be ordained to office without observing the standard of “chastity in singleness and fidelity in marriage”. This vote does not change that, it only introduces the possibility for that change. One founding principle of our denomination is that “councils may err”. It is my argument that this is precisely what happened in Minneapolis and it is my prayer that this error will not be allowed to stand (as indeed it has not been heretofore).
Further, I think it is a bit disingenuous to argue (as you do implicitly) that Roman Catholicism does not ever engage in something similar. Not every question of natural law has been settled “once and for all”. The mechanism is different (coming as it does through the Papal office) but the effect is the same — the (Roman) Church has changed her standards through time and some of those changes have come through reflection upon the ‘spirit of the age’. I think, for example, of John Paul II’s extensive (and wonderful), meditations on on the intersections (and conflicts) between modern liberal democracy and the historic Christian faith.
Finally, an apology. This is a sore subject for me. I have been part of a (shrinking) group of clergy and elders who have been fighting a rear guard action on this issue for nearly 40 years. I am weary of the fight, and weary of trying to explain to the good, faithful folks in my own congregation why the Biblical view (which is, I am certain the view held by a majority of the members in the pews of the PCUSA) must be yet again defended at the denominational level. My ‘slap in the face’ comment was inapt and defensive. My apologies. We agree wholeheartedly that “voting on the moral law is not biblically justifiable” but the reality of human fallenness teaches me that sometimes it is a necessity. Further the Bible teaches me and that it has an ancient history in the Church (going all the way back to at least Paul before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15). As for the “appropriateness” of this fight being a part of the execution of my labors, would that it were not necessary. But I don’t get to choose the fights before me. Standing for the Biblical standards of human sexuality and marriage is a part of the labor God has set before me and it would be a betrayal of my calling not to do so.
July 14th, 2010 | 3:15 pm
Good job, Kevin. I’ve cited you: http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2010/07/latest-protestant-kabuki-dance.html
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact