I asked a 7-year-old, “What is marriage?” She responded, “That’s when the mommy and the daddy still live together.”

To her way of thinking, marriage is defined as a man and a woman who are “not divorced.” If that is indicative of the cultural reality to which we have sunk, what is our witness as part of the Church?

How can distinctively Christian marriage bear witness to Christ in the world without becoming conformed to the current ways of the world? What does the Church have to say to the sexually confused and those unwilling to subordinate their own proclivities to the revealed will of God in the Word of God? Those are the questions posed to the General Assembly Task Force on Civil Unions and Christian Marriage by the GA in 2008. Unfortunately, their 2010 majority report reveals that they missed the point.

In addition to the task force’s majority report, a three-member minority of the task force has produced a faithful, Biblically sound, culturally relevant minority report. Where the majority report turns its eye away from the Scriptures to the world, the minority report leans into the Word and into the confessions in prophetic witness. The good news is that the commissioners have a clear choice between the two reports. (Editor’s note: Links to both reports at end of article.)

According to pc-biz.org (the official Web site of the GA), Committee #12 will “consider matters related to: Report of the Civil Unions Task Force; amendments to the Form of Government, Rules of Discipline and Directory for Worship related to marriage and civil unions; referrals defining marriage.”

That will include consideration of the task force reports, overtures seeking to affirm the historic definition of marriage, overtures seeking to change the definition of marriage, overtures seeking an authoritative interpretation that alters the definition without changing the constitution, and overtures seeking an understanding of session and pastoral discretion on the performance of weddings and the use of church property.

What is missing is any attempt to change the confessional standards of the Church to contort them to fit a same-sex marriage option. Changing the definition in the Directory for Worship of the Book of Order without changing the definition throughout the confessions will leave the PCUSA speaking utter confusion out of both sides of its mouth.

It seems as if a “whatever works” political tactic is in play. Knowing that altering the confessions is beyond their reach, proponents of same-sex marriage will settle for changing the language in the Directory for Worship. Recognizing that the required ratification by a majority of presbyteries would be unlikely, the lesbian/gay/bi-sexual/transgendered lobby would settle for an authoritative interpretation that broadens the definition by GA fiat. Short of that, they will settle for “local option” where sessions and pastors in states where same-sex unions have been legalized have the discretion on a case-by-case basis.

Settle for … settle for … settle for: this is clearly not a justice issue. If it were a genuine justice issue, proponents would stop at nothing short of full inclusion and real justice as they see it. If some may but none must, then what’s being sought is not justice, but individual-rule.

Individual-rule is inherently non-Presbyterian. Our first tenet is the ultimate sovereignty of God. That puts us in a position of submission to God’s authority. We are under His care, we are under His Word and we are under His rule. We bow to Him in all things, including our natural born proclivities toward behaviors that are contrary to His will revealed in the Scriptures. No ordained officer of the PCUSA is at liberty to act in a way that openly violates the Word of God.

Not only is God’s sovereignty sidelined by those who advocate for personal autonomy, but so is our basic Presbyterian connectionalism. As Presbyterians we humble ourselves to a form of governance that is built upon a commonly shared confessional standard. Those confessions bear unilateral witness to marriage as designed by God to be shared by one man and one woman. Therefore, no ordained officer of the PCUSA is at liberty to act in a way that openly violates the confessional standards of our church.

Finally, beyond God’s sovereignty as expressed in the Scriptures and theological connectionalism expressed in the confessions, at risk is our witness as an authentic part of the Body of Christ in the world today. As Presbyterians we readily acknowledge that we are a fractured and fractious people. But to this point we remain fundamentally aligned with the Christian Church in the world (at least through our espoused theology if not always through our theology in practice).

Should we take it upon ourselves to redefine what God has clearly delineated in the Bible, we break fellowship with the Body of Christ. We will have cut ourselves off from the True Vine and we will lose whatever witness we have left to be salt and light and leaven in the world that God so loves.

Links: 2010 Majority Report http://www.layman.org/News.aspx?article=26708
2010 Minority Report http://www.layman.org/News.aspx?article=26815

Carmen Fowler is president of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and executive editor of its publications. This commentary first appeared in the online version of The Layman on May 19 and is used with permission.
Source: http://www.layman.org/news.aspx?article=27020

[Editor’s note: The original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid, so the links have been removed.]