Dear Editor:

There are some disturbing trends in the debate on A. One common tactic of the progressive voice is to compare the issue to that of slavery and/or women's ordination. As if the church's change of stance on the wrongness of slavery based upon the color of ones skin or equality of a person based on their gender has anything to do with sexual preference.

History has shown that the myth of the genetic cause of Homosexuality is just that a myth there is no reality behind the claim. Furthermore recently one of the psychiatrists who helped remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses has reversed his position. On May 23, 2001 The Wall Street Journal reported in an Op-Ed piece by Dr. Robert Spitzer revealed that transformative therapy for homosexuals is not only possible but can be quite successful. On May 14 The Washington Times weekly edition reported the same findings. Homosexuality is not a genetic fact. It is a mental choice.

Therefore, to compare homosexual ordination to the persecution of African Americans is an insult to the people who have suffered under racial prejudice. It demeans the continuing struggle of a people who are persecuted for their skin color.

To compare the issue to women's ordination also demeans women. It is like comparing oranges to watermelons. Not only are they different fruit they are different in size, shape, color, taste, and plant type of origin (trees vs. vines). The bible constantly refers to the equality of women. First they as well as men are made in the image of God. Later Deborah is given leadership over all of Israel. Later still Priscilla and Aquilla who teach a budding preacher. Finally only one small verse speaks of women not being in leadership and this is a particular letter, to a particular person, in a particular place at a
particular time. It was a good exegetical decision to realize our previous position on ordination had been in error.

Yet no amount of exegetical work can remove the fact that homosexuality is called sin in both testaments and in universal as well as particular documents. To compare a moral choice to the issue of slavery and equality is shameful.

I see also a trend to minimize the intent of Amendment A. It is important to always remember the source of something. For instance if you are about to drink a glass of water you should know whether it came from the faucet or from the toilet. No matter what the water looks like I doubt you would drink the one from the toilet. Amendment A has a source beyond the 213th General Assembly.

Primary sponsors of this amendment included That All May Freely Serve, More Light Presbyterians, and The Covenant Network. The stated goal of all of these groups is that, "...to be able to ordain gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (glbt) individuals as deacons, elders and ministers of word and sacrament without fear of reprisal" (quoted from a sermon printed on the Witherspoon Society's web page the sermon was entitled "Moving Mountains"). Furthermore they state that they seek to remove ALL barriers to such ordinations. If these groups purpose is to remove all the barriers to glbt ordination then isn't it safe to say their universal support of A means it furthers their cause? If these groups universally support Amendment - A and the groups opposed to glbt ordination are universally opposed to it - Why in the world are we supposed to understand this to be a "third way"? That offends my intelligence and yours.

The goal of the groups who support this amendment is the full inclusion of glbt persons as ordained leaders in our denomination. The only conclusion, therefore, is that this amendment furthers their purpose. It's that simple. A little study of polity, the Kenyon Case for example will make it clear that 1)Ordination is for the whole church and 2) that the game plan is to start local and then force it national. Think of that poor Confessing Church in the all Progressive presbytery that may be forced to ordain Self Affirming Practicing Homosexuals because that is the Presbytery's policy.

Finally another trend that is disturbing is the labeling of Confessing Churches and others as schismatic. One this implies that Presbyterianism represents the whole church. We are simply a denomination within the great body of God's church. Furthermore the claim that the Confessing Church or the renewal groups are schismatic is simply untrue. If these groups wanted to leave the church why do they stay around year after year despite all the abuse they take from their progresive siblings? It is not a matter of wanting to leave the church we Confessing Churches simply want the church to stop leaving us. This is not too much to ask.

These are some trends and my thoughts regarding them. I am sure the debate will continue.

Respectfully

Bill Crawford
Pastor
First Presbyterian Church
Thibodaux, La.

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