If one can see the extension of kindness in the form of basic provision as part of the grace of the gospel, this decision (which is now out of our hands) may sit a little better. If, on the other hand, another suffers a scruple (namely, anxiety that the rule is more lax than one can follow with a good conscience), there are few options besides leaving the Plan (with all that implies).

[Editor’s Note: Dr. Naegeli desires that readers look at both of her posts on this topic (they appear one after the other on our website) to get both sides of the story.]

Wow. Yesterday’s post about the recent BOP decision raised quite a stir. The mail and comments, all sent with honesty and feeling, reveal just what a conundrum we have with the Board’s decision. I urge you to read them here. If my perceptions are accurate, every person who wrote identified him- or herself as a theological conservative. And yet, even so, there were differences of opinion about how to respond. In follow up, then, let us consider other ways of looking at the issue.

There are at least three possible reasons why participants in the Benefits Plan should let this one go, and let it be:

The Grace and Truth of the Gospel

1. Christ embodied both the truth and the grace of the gospel. The truth of the gospel includes a pointed indictment of sin, and it is God’s wisdom to acknowledge we all suffer from a fallen nature. The grace of the gospel proclaims the availability of forgiveness, transformation, and restoration to all people. It is the Lord’s desire that all people receive what he has to offer, and their rejection of his grace does not stop him from offering it.

2. God extends blessing of a basic kind indiscriminately: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:43-45). Christians desiring to be godly should be willing to show kindness even to those they might consider “unrighteous.” After all, every single one of us has received a great kindness from God, have we not? That is what grace is: undeserved favor, described splendidly in Ephesians 1. True kindness itself can never hurt, and may in fact help: “Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” (Rom. 2:4). Securing pension benefits or medical coverage for a homosexual partner may be one such kindness. We all remember that God’s kindness toward us is a pure gift of grace freely given, not a right we have demanded and won.

3. I think Jesus would say it is possible (even necessary) to show kindness towards individuals without endorsing their sin. This is the real concern of theological conservatives, I think, that by providing medical care or pension benefits to a same-sex spouse they are endorsing and supporting sexual immorality. What makes this hard to swallow is that some LGBT people trumpet the BOP decision as a symbolic victory, but they claim too much if they consider a simple kindness as an endorsement of a lifestyle.
Legal Considerations

I have asked some questions of an official at the Board of Pension, along the following lines. My inquiry came after office hours Monday and I won’t get an answer before this post is uploaded. When I hear back, I will post here.

1. What is the actual relationship between the BOP and the PCUSA?

2. What is the actual relationship between the BOP and civil regulators? Is the BOP “protected” as a religiously based organization or, because of its fiduciary responsibilities, is it a public entity? Perhaps both, in which case, which authority presides in which domain?

3. Those vested in the Plan will receive their pensions under rules of retirement, whether they remain in the PCUSA or not. Is this guarantee required by federal regulation or is it defined solely by the BOP’s own rule and commitment? If the latter, is it possible that such a rule could be rescinded at some future time?

4. What exposure does the BOP have to civil lawsuit if it does not extend benefits to same-sex partnerships?

It’s Only Money, and Not That Much

Sometimes we give money just plain too much power and symbolism for our own good. There is an aspect of this situation that is only about money and where it goes, but if we were truly honest, a lot of our (other) money goes to companies we may have issues with for other reasons. Perhaps liberals can appreciate the difficulty conservatives have on this particular issue, by recalling a parallel case of their own passion for divestment initiatives based on political views.

On the other hand, think about it: less than 1% of pension funds are probably needed for the expanded coverage. Every person who is part of the plan has had funds deposited in the Pension Plan by his or her congregation, so presumably the church that has installed a partnered homosexual person is not troubled by making such contributions. GLBT individuals would have a very fair objection if their church were required to pay into the system without the commensurate assurance of their own benefit.

Now before my readers go off on “compromise” or “sell-out” as a result of my post, give me credit for trying to see diverse points of view. I am committed to bringing the Word to life, and this is real life now for thousands of Presbyterians. Evangelicals have to take the gospel seriously or we have no credibility at all. If one can see the extension of kindness in the form of basic provision as part of the grace of the gospel, this decision (which is now out of our hands) may sit a little better. If, on the other hand, another suffers a scruple (namely, anxiety that the rule is more lax than one can follow with a good conscience), there are few options besides leaving the Plan (with all that implies).

A much tougher subject than I anticipated, but one I hope drives all of us to a fuller appreciation of God’s benevolence towards us and the potential for extending that blessing to others.

Mary Naegeli is a minister in the PCUSA and serves as minister-at-large in San Francisco Presbytery and is the newly appointed Renewal Director for the Presbytery Coalition. She is Adjunct Faculty at Fuller Theological Seminary, where she received her DMin. She blogs (prolifically) at Bringing The Word to Life where this article first appeared; it is used with her permission.