Schism in the United Presbyterian Church? It might happen if the UPC’s General Assembly this May adopts the proposed policy statement of a denominational task force that spent fifteen months studying whether self-acknowledged practicing homosexuals can be ordained. In summary, the task force said that according to constitutional mandate ordination decisions must be made by the presbyteries (area governing units) and congregations involved, not by the General Assembly. But it also said that ordination of homosexuals who are otherwise qualified should be permitted.
Two years ago the Presbytery of New York City asked the UPC General Assembly for guidance on whether to ordain an avowed homosexual under its jurisdiction. The assembly replied that the ordination of such a person was “at the present time injudicious if not improper,” but it asked a representative group of clergy of laity and clergy to study the issue and make recommendations. The nineteen-member group finished its work many weeks ago. It issued both a majority and minority report. The majority report contained about 150 pages of study material and a twenty-eight-page proposed policy statement approving the ordination of homosexuals. It was written by Byron E. Shafer, chairman of the religious studies department of Fordham University. The minority report, signed by five persons, asked the General Assembly to rule that the church’s constitution precludes the ordination of homosexuals.
The task force was chaired by lay-woman Virginia Davidson of Rochester, New York, a liberal. Members included pastors, theologians, lay leaders, an ethicist, and others selected to represent various viewpoints in the church. Among the minority was Richard Lovelace, a teacher at Gordon-Conwell Seminary.
In mid-January, the UPC Advisory Council on Church and Society met in Philadelphia and voted 12 to 3 to recommend adoption of the majority position of the task force. It is this recommendation that will be acted upon by the General Assembly in May in San Diego.
Nervous officials placed an embargo on news of the action until a six-page explanatory paper was mailed to all UPC pastors. It stressed that the General Assembly “may choose to accept or reject any or all of [the report] and the majority and minority recommendations, to change any or all of it, or to take some other action.”
Much of the material in the background paper is summarized in the proposed policy statement. Among the major points in the proposed statement are these:
• Sexual orientation is best understood as affectional attraction rather than sexual behavior, and homosexuality “is a strong, enduring, not consciously chosen and usually irreversible affectional attraction to and preference for persons of the same sex.”
• Homosexuality is “a minor theme in Scripture” and is not mentioned either by the prophets or by Jesus himself.
• In the full context of Scripture, “… we must conclude that Paul’s understanding of homosexual behavior does not adequately encompass the modern phenomenon of multiple forms of homosexuality arising from a variety of psychosocial causes.…”
• Homosexuals may be admitted to church membership or the ordained offices if they can give honest affirmation to the vows required and if the deciding body is satisfied that the candidates meet all the criteria for membership or ordination. (Deacons and ruling elders in UPC churches are ordained and take nearly the same vows as the clergy.)
Eternity In View
A majority of people in Iowa believe in heaven and hell, the Des Moines Register and Tribune discovered some time ago in a poll. More recently the newspaper took a follow-up poll and found that 31 per cent of the sample 605 Iowans interviewed think that they know someone who is going to hell, but that only 5 per cent believe they will end up there themselves. On the other hand, only 57 per cent of the men surveyed felt they would eventually land in heaven, while 72 per cent of the women saw themselves passing through the pearly gates someday. Those foreseeing themselves going to hell tended to be political independents or Democrats under age 35 and members of labor unions.
• Nothing in the church’s constitution either prohibits or requires the ordination of avowed homosexuals; the judgment of the ordaining body as to fitness of any candidate—judged as an individual—is the decisive factor.
• Ordination does not set a person apart “into a class or status separated from other Christians.”
• Continuing and widespread study is needed, including efforts to heal the church of its “homophobia,” described as the irrational fear of homosexuality and homosexuals.
The majority report also recommends that seminary admission standards be non-discriminatory, that UPC members work toward the decriminalization of private homosexual acts between consenting adults, and that members press for passage of laws prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in employment, housing, and public accommodations.
The minority report concurs with a few of the majority’s recommendations (the sections on the need for study, decriminalization, and equal rights), but it states that “all of Scripture speaks with one voice, unequivocally demonstrating that homosexual practice is not the will of God for his beloved children [but is rather] a result of man’s fallen condition.” It also affirms that “our present understanding of God’s will for his people precludes the ordination” of self-professed practicing homosexuals.
Controversy over the issue is already widespread in the 2.6-million-member denomination. Two dozen former moderators (chief elected officers) of the church recently joined current moderator John T. Conner in issuing an appeal for moderation and prayer, pending action by the General Assembly.
If the assembly goes along with the task force majority, the action would give the church the most liberal policy toward homosexuality of any major American denomination.
Many observers in the UPC insist that the majority report has no chance of passing. Some point to a recent nationwide survey of UPC leaders: 71 per cent of the laity and 68 per cent of the pastors said they believed that ordination of homosexuals is “improper,” and 80 per cent of the laity plus 73 per cent of the pastors indicated that they would not accept a homosexual as their pastor.
Most conservatives in the UPC would probably identify with the reaction of Pastor John A. Huffman, Jr., of First Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh when he learned of the proposals. He spoke out against the attempt of Gay Liberation forces to change the biblical definition of homosexual practices as sin, and he criticized “the attempt of this militant minority to take over” the UPC. He also warned that if the General Assembly adopts the proposals it would be doubtful whether he and many of the members of his church could “any longer remain in a denomination which is acting in defiance of biblical teaching.” His church has more than 2,200 members.
Important conservative leaders are already tooling up for battle. An all-day meeting has been scheduled for February 13 at Chicago’s O’Hare Hilton Hotel to consolidate forces and devise strategy. The meeting was called by the same group of thirteen pastors of influential churches and three educators who met in Chicago last November. They formulated at that time a document known as the Chicago Plan. The positions set forth in it are virtually the same as those in the minority report of the task force. It was drawn up partly in an attempt to prevent the task force from doing what it did.
Key persons from each of the UPC presbyteries have been invited by letter to the February meeting. The majority report turned out “to be stronger than we anticipated,” wrote Pastor Jerry R. Kirk of the 2,051-member College Hill Presbyterian Church of Cincinnati. “The future of our church is at stake,” he declared. He added: “The public confession of the power of the Gospel to truly liberate homosexuals is at stake as is that same power to heal homophobia within the church. The majority report tends to heighten homophobia rather than to heal it.” He indicated that the Chicago deliberations will be aimed at unifying and coordinating what he and his colleagues believe is the majority sentiment throughout the UPC membership. That sentiment, they feel, is expressed in the minority report of the task force.
The November meeting was convened by Pastor Harry B. Brahams of the 1,749-member LaJolla (California) Presbyterian Church and Pastor John H. Stevens of the 3,472-member First Presbyterian Church of Colorado Springs. Besides Kirk and Huffman, the other pastors who attended were:
Edward R. Danks, the 1,656-member Noroton Presbyterian Church, Darien, Connecticut; Lewis H. Evans, Jr., the 2,537-member National Presbyterian Church, Washington, D.C.; Richard Halverson, the 1,619-member Fourth Presbyterian Church, Bethesda, Maryland; Richard H. Leon, the 1,232-member First Presbyterian Church, Spokane, Washington; Ernest J. Lewis, the 1,911-member First Presbyterian Church, Evanston, Illinois; Robert M. Oerter, Jr., the 2,071-member Boulder (Colorado) Presbyterian Church; Earl F. Palmer, the 1,718-member First Presbyterian Church, Berkeley, California; Vahe Simonian, the 2,106-member Pasadena (California) Presbyterian Church; William J. Wiseman, the 4,726-member First Presbyterian Church, Tulsa.
There were strong hints that these men and their churches—along with hosts of others—will bolt the denomination if the 650-plus delegates at this year’s General Assembly adopt the task force’s recommendations.
An unofficial caucus known as Presbyterians for Gay Concerns is expected to lobby for passage of the majority report. The group’s coordinator is Chris Glaser, a graduate of Yale Divinity School and a ruling elder at West Hollywood Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles, where he receives denominational financial support to work among “the gay community.” A self-avowed homosexual, he was also one of the members of the task force majority.
Chair Shift
Trustees and administrators of the 4,300-student University of Richmond, a school related to the Virginia Southern Baptist Association, announced last month the transfer of the controversial chairman of the school’s department of religion to another post.
The chairman. Robert S. Alley, said the move was his own idea to help quiet the furor he caused in December when he addressed a small group of atheists at a Unitarian church. In that talk, which was covered by the Richmond News-Leader, he said that Jesus “never really claimed to be God or to be related to him.” Alley also told his listeners: “I don’t imagine for a minute that he would have had the audacity to claim deity for himself.” The professor said that Bible passages where Jesus talks about the Son of God were added to the text later by his followers. It was Paul, said Alley, who turned Jesus “into something other than a man.”
Three days after the story appeared, scores of Richmond-area Southern Baptist ministers held a special meeting to discuss the matter. University president E. Bruce Heilman, under fire from trustees, donors, church leaders, and alumni as a result of Alley’s comments, attended the meeting. He made a formal apology, explaining that he could not “muzzle” his teachers. (He was also under pressure from his faculty to protect the tenured Alley from censorship and outside interference.) The pastors issued a statement taking issue with Alley’s remarks as published. (Alley claimed that he was misquoted and misinterpreted.)
Alley’s new position involves administrative responsibility for an “area studies” program involving a variety of courses in several departments (but not religion). Alley is teaching the courses that he was scheduled to teach in the religion department this term. They have been moved to other departments in order to accommodate the students who had signed up for an Alley course before the big uproar took place.
Essentials
What is it that distinguishes a church-related college from its secular counterpart?
One set of answers emerged from a year-long study of fourteen church-related colleges by the National Council of Churches. The research was directed by President Merrimon Cuninggim of Salem College in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and was funded in part by a Ford Foundation grant. Cuninggim listed eight “essentials” for a church-related college. It must:
• Consciously intend to maintain a relationship with a church or churches and have agreement from all its constituent groups about the nature of the relationship.
• Make provision for religion in all aspects of college life, taking seriously both the study of religion and worship.
• Integrate the church’s values into school policies and practices, including personnel policies.
• Be able to depend on the church’s understanding of the educational task.
• Receive tangible support from the church, such as money, recruitment of students, scholarship or loan funds, or legal aid.
• Feel it also receives intangible support from the church, such as encouragement to act in some area of social need or assurance of the church’s support against outside pressures.
• Influence—and be influenced by—the church.
• Know the reasons it wants to be related to the church and the reasons the church wants to be related to the college.
Most Influential
Who are the ten most influential persons on the American religious scene today?
That was the question posed by Christian Century magazine in a poll of thirty-five religion writers and editors, almost evenly divided between the secular and religious press.
Evangelist Billy Graham received nearly unanimous support as the most influential. After him came:
• Martin E. Marty, church historian and widely quoted religious-affairs analyst.
• President Jimmy Carter, Southern Baptist layman who has popularized the born-again movement.
• Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum, highly visible and vocal national director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee.
• President Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame university, a Roman Catholic priest who formerly headed the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.
• Evangelist Oral Roberts, Pentecostal-turned-Methodist faith healer who has a large TV ministry, a university, and plans for a medical center that may rival the world’s best.
• Bill Bright, founder and director of Campus Crusade for Christ, sponsor of the recent “Here’s Life, America” campaign.
• Jesse Jackson, the black Baptist minister who heads Operation PUSH, a self-help program.
• Anita Bryant, the Bible-quoting singer who has sparked nationwide opposition to homosexual activism.
• William P. Thompson, stated clerk of the United Presbyterian Church and president of the National Council of Churches.
Soviet Sojourn
Many months ago leaders of the All Union Council of Evangelical Christians-Baptists, the main Protestant body in the Soviet Union, invited founder-president Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ to come and speak in their churches. In late December Bright filled that engagement. He took along his wife Vonette, an interpreter, and several aides. The three-week visit was another landmark event in recent East-West church developments. Bright preached to an estimated 15,000 persons in eleven services at churches in seven cities. At some of the churches his wife also addressed the overflow crowds.
Everywhere they went the Brights were welcomed warmly. The services, featuring choirs and orchestras, testimonial recitation of poetry, prayers, and as many as four sermons, lasted three and sometimes four hours. On Christmas Day. Bright spoke in two of the three services at the Baptist church in Leningrad. More than 2,000 attended each service in a sanctuary that seated only 600.
In Kiev, Bright preached to 500 or so (some stood outside in the snow in subzero temperature and listened to the service over loudspeakers) at the Reform Baptist church headed by Georgi Vins, a dissident Baptist leader who has been imprisoned since February, 1975, for his activities. Bright had a brief conversation with Vins’s wife, aide Robbie Gowdey told reporters. (Vins’s plight has attracted wide international attention, incuding a U.S. congressional resolution calling for his freedom. He is reported to be in failing health in a Soviet prison camp in Siberia. His Kiev congregation recently was given official recognition by authorities, thus enabling it to function within the law. Most Reform Baptist congregations do not have such official status yet.)
Other cities where Bright spoke included Moscow, Minsk, and Tula. There were many young people in the congregations, he noted. He invited his listeners to commit their lives to Christ, and people came forward for personal prayer. Some knelt at the altar and openly professed their faith in Christ. In each community there were tearful farewells as the Brights prepared to leave. Amid strains of “Blest Be The Tie That Binds” and “God Be With You Till We Meet Again” members waved white handkerchiefs and uttered prayers.
During his visit Bright met with a number of church leaders and government officials. The officials tried to explain to Bright the “different perspective” the Soviets have of religious freedom: the believers are free to worship in their prayer houses (churches), the government is free to promote its atheistic ideology elsewhere. At one point Bright reportedly inquired about the obvious shortage of Bibles. A shortage of paper was blamed. Bright then offered to send one million free Bibles—an offer that was “taken under advisement,” according to news accounts of his visit. “There is a great desire for Bibles in the Soviet Union,” Bright commented later.
In talks with reporters, Bright took note of the degree of religious freedom he had seen. “In the churches we’ve visited, there’s been no hindrance whatsoever, and we’ve been free to talk about Christianity in restaurants, on trains, and on planes,” he told a reporter with the New York Times News Service. He also noted the vitality of the Christianity to which he had been exposed. “It is not ritual, but reality,” he said.
“I accepted the invitation to speak to the churches in the Soviet Union,” stated Bright, “with the prayer that God would enable us not only to minister and be ministered to but also to build bridges of love and trust between the people of our respective countries.”
