Dear Editor:

Deacon Apel's response to my prior letter regarding the burden of proof in determining the theological position of the PCUSA on issues of human sexuality is an excellent example of the reason meaningful dialogue on these issues still alludes us as a denomination. It also illustrates the basis for the high level of frustration being expressed in the Confessing Church movement. It is the same type of frustration Alice experienced after going through the looking glass into a world where the rules of logic and reason no longer apply.

In my prior letter, I posited that based on the unambiguous Scriptural proscription of homosexual conduct and the unambiguous Scriptural prescription of the holy institution of marriage as the sole means for the expression of human sexuality as affirmed by the universal teaching of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches on this point for 2000 years, the burden of proof to alter this consistent understanding of Biblical theology falls upon those advocating a change. Deacon Apel's response, which is fairly typical in tone and content, makes me wonder whether honest and meaningful conversation on the theological issues involved is possible.

FIRST, Deacon Apel states that, in fact, he does not approve of extra-marital sexual conduct. He then states that he does approve of homosexual conduct, but only in committed loving relationships that "mimic" marriage. (The basic theological concept that the "mimicking" of the good gifts of God's creation is the basis of every temptation to sin and the primary tool of Satan, who appears as an "angel of light", is beyond the scope of this response). Therefore, Deacon Apel concludes that he supports both marital sexual exclusivity and homosexual conduct. As it stands, what Deacon Apel has said is nonsense. Socrates instructed his students in the simplest of all logical constructs, the syllogism, with this famous example:

Socrates is a man
All men are moral
Therefore, Socrates is moral

Let us now apply this simple test of logic to the response of Deacon Apel:

Sexual conduct outside of marriage is wrong
Homosexual conduct is sexual conduct outside of marriage
Therefore, homosexual conduct is not wrong

Deacon Apel's statements are illogical nonsense because homosexual couples cannot have sexual relations anywhere else but outside of marriage, as set forth in the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions. He simply ignores this objective fact. It is a fact not subject to dispute or opinion or interpretation. Thus, Deacon Apel alters reality to make two logically inconsistent statements which cannot simultaneously stand. Whether he does this carelessly or with intentional disregard for any semblance of logic is irrelevant. The fact remains that two contradictory statements cannot be true and objective facts cannot be altered at will. Deacon Apel says that sex should only be within marriage and that homosexual conduct is fine under certain conditions that "mimic" marriage, but are not marriage. These two positions are mutually exclusive and self-contradictory. This makes it difficult to have a meaningful conversation about anything.

In fact, what Deacon Apel is really saying is this:

Sexual conduct outside of marriage is wrong
Committed homosexual relationships are the equivalent of marriage
Therefore, sexual conduct in such relationships is not wrong

At last we get to what Deacon Apel is really saying. He is positing that a committed homosexual relationship is the theological equivalent of marriage between a husband and wife. That is an enormous assumption. It directly contradicts 3000 years of Jewish and Christian Biblical interpretation and is directly contrary to the confessional standards and Book of Order of the PCUSA. Yet, Deacon Apel throws this out as a "given" in order to allow himself the opportunity to uphold the institution of marriage and affirm homosexual conduct at the same time. Now, if one wants to argue that the Church should dismantle and redefine marriage, one should say so. It is both intellectually dishonest and destructive of true communication to make a false assumption of fact the linchpin of one's position and then set forth two mutually exclusive statements based thereon as if they were self-evident. This exhibits a complete disregard for the truth and renders any statements based on these approaches to be mere propaganda.

Yet, Deacon Apel's approach is representative of many, and perhaps most, of those seeking to change the orthodox Christian doctrines regarding human sexuality. That is why the frustration level is so high. That is why the GLBT lobby groups in the PCUSA are mistrusted. Their arguments claim to uphold marriage and endorse homosexual conduct. They simply fail to mention the fact that these two positions cannot coexist unless the institution of marriage is destroyed and reconstructed.

SECOND, Deacon Apel rejects my statement that those seeking to deconstruct and redefine Christian marriage have the burden of proof. He does not do this by explaining why a teaching of the Church since its inception must prove itself anew in 2001. He does not do this by argument or appeal to objective criteria of any kind. On the contrary, he attempts to shift the burden of proof through simple "nay-saying".

You remember this technique from childhood. The older child tells his younger brother; "Bobby has a new bike". The younger brother wants a new bike, but his parents said that he cannot have one. So, the younger brother disagrees and "nay-says" the statement: "Bobby does not have a new bike". Now the fact is that Bobby does have a new bike, which can be objectively verified. Thus, this debate should be meaningless. But the younger brother has learned how to win the unwinnable argument. He goes to his mother and says: "My older brother has hurt my feelings and has said terrible things to me". Mother does not want hurt feelings and wants her sons to live in unity and harmony and Christian love. Therefore, she tells the older son:" Tell your brother that you are sorry. It's the Christian thing to do". Sorry for what? For stating a fact? For telling the truth? But, being a good Christian boy, the older son goes ahead and apologizes for saying that Bobby has a new bike, even though Bobby most certainly does. In the aftermath of this exchange, the fact of Bobby's new bike cannot be mentioned again. That fact has be redefined to be hurtful and unloving and destructive of unity. If the younger brother declares that Bobby's new bike does not exist, it would now seem morally wrong for the older brother to dispute that declaration. The "burden of proof" as to the existence of the bike has now been shifted. This has not been done by an appeal to the facts, nor by sound reasoning, but rather by an appeal to sympathy, unity, harmony and Christian love. The facts are now irrelevant. They have been trumped by the desire to be loving and acceptant and unified. For all practical purpose in this household, Bobby's new bike does not exist. The new bike has ceased to be truth "for them".

This may or may not be an example of a good way to be a parent. It is most certainly an example of the worst way to do theology. Yet, this is exactly the methodology employed by Deacon Apel and many others. Deacon Apel simply "nay-says" 2000 years of historical theology and declares :"No, you have the burden of proof because I have the wonderful story of love on my side". Now, to disagree with him, I must stand over against love itself. This is the ultimate "dirty trick" of reasoned debate. Perhaps Deacon Apel doesn't realize he is doing this. If so, real dialogue becomes extremely difficult. It is one thing to debate with a sharp adversary. It is quite another to debate with the little boy who does not want Bobby to have a new bike and has chosen to deny its existence to ease his emotional pain. Theology is a matter for adult discussion between those who are intellectually honest and logically consistent. We see precious little of these qualities in our discussions these days in the PCUSA.

THIRD, Deacon Apel concludes by stating that his use of the "love" trump card makes all other views "simply contradictory". Contradictory of what? Contradictory of his assumed and undefined definition of inclusive "love". If you control the answer key, you always get an "A". However, in the Church, only God controls the answer key, as set forth in the Word of God. Objective truth is the foundation of Christian theology. Deacon Apel subjectively assumes away the historic theological meaning of Christian marriage and then replaces it with the ethic of "love". He then declares that this love ethic is the only Biblical underpinning for the institution of marriage and that without his love ethic, marriage itself would not exist. He argues as follows:

Committed love is the sole criterion for the institution of marriage Homosexual couples share committed love
Therefore, such homosexual couples are in the theological equivalent of marriage.

Once again, Deacon Apel alters the underlying facts and then builds his position of false foundations. A Biblical analysis would be as follows:

Union between a man and a women is a sine qua non for marriage
Homosexual couples are not composed of a man and a women
Therefore, homosexual couples cannot be married

This is not a matter of opinion, but a restatement of our confessional standards based on the Word of God. Deacon Apel's real argument is that Christian marriage, as taught by the Church since Pentecost, should be discarded in favor of a new institution open to committed homosexual couples. That is the real issue here. There is a lack of integrity and intellectual honesty in hiding this ball. For example, when Dr. Rogers stands before GA and states that he is a strong advocate of marriage without explaining that his definition of marriage would include same sex couples, he ceases to be a theologian and becomes a politician. We cannot allow genuine discussion of foundational theological issues to be avoided by those who insist of assuming facts which do not exist or who insist on adopting the mantle of a wounded victim of injustice to trump all reasoned discussions.

The issue that confronts the 173 presbyteries of the PCUSA as they address Amendment 01-A is not justice, love, inclusion or acceptance of any group or individual. It is not an issue of local option or polity. This is about nothing other than deciding whether the PCUSA will recognize 2000 years of Church doctrine founded on the Word of God as it defines marriage as a covenant relationship between a man and a woman which is the sole vessel provided by the Creator God for the expression and enjoyment of human sexuality. No appeals to love, justice, acceptance or inclusion can allow the acceptance of extra-marital sexual conduct within a homosexual relationship unless the PCUSA rejects the orthodox Christian view of marriage and redefines this basic doctrine. Should this be done by changing our ordination standards to conflict with the Church's confessional standards regarding marriage, or should this be a theological enterprise to rewrite our confessional standards? The answer seems obvious. It is not an answer the advocates of "backdoor" theological revisions wish to hear.

If Deacon Apel and others want to address this issue with honesty and openness, let them stand up and bear the burden of proof. It is a mighty burden. Disjointed logic and emotional appeals will not do it. They must tell us why the Church has been wrong for 2000 years and why it is time to change our understanding of the Word of God. Our members, deacons elders and clergy must demand an honest and serious consideration of basic theological issues that define the PCUSA as a part of the holy, catholic, apostolic Church.

This type of consideration will simply not occur as political lobby groups for gay and lesbian rights clamor about justice love and inclusion. Win or loss, the issues will still be there. If Amendment A passes, same sex unions will be next. At that point, what possible basis would there be to exclude them? Our Moderator has said as much. If Amendment A fails, the GLBT lobby groups will just be back again next year, or the year after that. The battle will continue until we discuss this with honesty and integrity. The GLBT groups want to disassemble and redefine the traditional Biblical constructs of marriage, family and human sexuality. I believe most of the PCUSA wants to reaffirm orthodox Christian doctrine based upon the written Word of God in these areas. That is the real issue. That is the real burden of proof. If I were on the other side of this debate, I would try to avoid it too. It is a burden of proof that cannot be carried. The PCUSA must not allow the issue to be avoided. It must focus on the ball, not matter how hard others may try to hide it.

back to Presbyweb's Home Page
Copyright (c) 2001 by the author or Presbyweb. All rights reserved