At the same time that PCUSA groups such as the Witherspoon Society and More Light Presbyterians trumpet every presbytery that votes to eliminate the fidelity/chastity standard for ordination, it seems that the early going shows no sign that things will be any different from the last vote on the subject in 2001. According to the Layman Online:
Presbyteries are continuing to follow the voting patterns of past years when considering amendment 08-b, the latest attempt to eliminate the “fidelity/chastity” ordination requirement (G-6.0106b) from the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Three presbyteries held votes on Saturday and one Thursday evening to bring the grand total to 15-7 against changing the Book of Order.
As you can see by looking at the vote chart at the Layman site, no presbyteries have changed sides since 2001. Specific vote totals, yes, but not the results that matter. So far, 22 of 173 have voted, leaving 151. Of those 151, 80 would have to vote for the amendment for it to pass, but of those 151, only 39 voted for the change the last time around. That means 41 presbyteries of those that have not yet voted would need to change their vote. That seems very unlikely.
On the other hand, given what has been wrought via judicial decision, as well as other General Assembly actions that don’t require presbyterial approval, does it really make any difference?
January 27, 2009 at 10:59 am
Actually there has been movement. Many of the presbyteries that have voted against the new-B, have done so by a smaller margin than before, and many of the presbyteries that have voted for the new-B have done so by a larger margin than before.
The change, ultimately will be a demographic one in our favor, and is be unstoppable. As older ministers and elders are replaced by younger folks who do not share their views on these matters, change will happen. (Statistically, the single most important predictor for predicting a person’s views on LGBT issues is age.) So then, it’s important to build that foundation early so that it is ready when the church gets eventually there. Thus, even if a vote is lost, or even several votes, the infrastructure need to make that change is in place for the future.
There’s no good news here for the other side. Give it another 20 years and the EPC, and other more conservative denominations will have the same battles, just as the arguments over women’s ordination were delayed, but not avoided.
January 27, 2009 at 11:08 am
wow, I wish there was an edit feature. LOL that should be “will be” not “is be”
January 27, 2009 at 2:15 pm
“The change, ultimately will be a demographic one in our favor, and is be unstoppable. As older ministers and elders are replaced by younger folks who do not share their views on these matters, change will happen. (Statistically, the single most important predictor for predicting a person’s views on LGBT issues is age.)”
Well, I’m in a different denomination now and don’t follow things in the PCUSA very closely anymore but I can think of a couple of reasons why Alan’s prediction might not prove true.
1. As people get older, get married, and have kids they often become more conservative, so predicting their future views is not a sure thing.
2. Even if we grant that the demographic swing in the general culture is toward liberal, it is not people in the general culture who vote at presbyteries. It is members and ministers of congregations. And so the place to look for who holds the demographic keys to the kingdom is at congregational growth. Which congregations are growing, conservative or liberal ones?
3. But bottom line of the demographic question may be answered by determining which is happening faster, the death of the liberal congregations or the departure of conservative ones……
January 27, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Maybe not, but time is on our side.
That’s a good point, BTW. I think the slow trickle of a few congregations out of the PCUSA will simply speed up the changes that demographics have already started. Unfortunately for them, as I said, I think they’re simply postponing the inevitable. (The number of gay pastors in the denominations to which they flee is not zero, which will, one day I think, come as quite a shock to a few people.)
As for people becoming more conservative as they grow older, I have yet to meet someone who, after turning 50 suddenly changes their views on ordination, for example. I suppose it happens, but it isn’t really something I’m too worried about. It isn’t, I think, that people become more conservative, it’s that, overall, they stop becoming more liberal as society continues to change around them. So, as young people grow older, I think there’s very little evidence that they’re en masse going to suddenly take a 180˚ change on these issues.
And it isn’t the ministers I’m worried about. I think it’s pretty clear that they’re already more liberal than the denomination as a whole. And they and our elders don’t magically appear out of nowhere, but are drawn from society as a whole. There are very few ways in which Christians in the US do not mirror general trends in the population as a whole.
January 27, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Well, plenty of people can attest to the fact that the views they held when they were 20 are not the same ones they hold at 40. I’d do the famous quote on the subject by Winston Churchill – who crossed the aisle twice during his career – but, meh.
As for your statement, “There are very few ways in which Christians in the US do not mirror general trends in the population as a whole”, all I can say is, if true, that’s a pretty damning statement. But I don’t think it is true.
January 27, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I think you’re misunderstanding. Obviously, most people grow and mature over time. But large scale, 180˚ changes, enough of them to keep this demographic trend from happening? I think that’s rare. Of course, that’s just an opinion, as is yours, and I don’t have a lot of evidence to back my opinion up, except for the fact that society (and the church) does keep changing, and if people mostly became more and more conservative as they age, given that older folks vote in much higher numbers than younger folks, we’d be back in the 1850s socially by now if it were true to any large extent. Instead, while the Boomers, for example, may be more conservative now than they seemed back when they were in their 20′s, they’re still more liberal than the generation that preceded them, and much more than the generation before that.
As for my claim that Christians don’t differ much than the US population as a whole, I was mostly thinking of social attitudes and actions. For example, Christians in the US have abortions at the same rate as the national average (higher for Catholics, actually), the rate of premarital sex is about the same, divorce rates are the same or higher (higher for more conservative Christians, actually), etc. At the moment, I can’t really think of ways in which Christians, as a group, do differ radically from the US population as a whole, statistically.
January 27, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Nah, I understood you just fine. I simply don’t agree with you. I’ve changed “180 degrees” on lots of issues, big and small, over the past decades of my life. And I’ve heard enough similar testimonies to know that I’m not all that rare.
As for the historical argument that each generation gets more and more liberal, all I can say is that societies don’t move that neatly from century to century. It’s hard to imagine some of Shakespeare’s bawdy scenes being written in Victorian England or during the Puritan ascendancy of the 1600′s. Just because we live in a sexually anarchic time doesn’t mean things will get more and more anarchic. (Did I just make up a word?) In fact, it might be argued that the self-destructive tendencies of present culture will lead to a crash and a self-correction. Who knows?
Even if I couldn’t think of any historical examples I would still reject your argument that a social trend is inevitable. I don’t believe in Fate. I believe in a free and sovereign God who can bend history to suit his purpose.
January 28, 2009 at 9:32 am
Oh, I don’t believe in fate either. I believe in Providence. And that’s on our side too. God does bend history to suit his purpose, and it bends toward justice, not away.
January 28, 2009 at 9:57 am
“I believe in Providence. And that’s on our side too.”
Wow! That statement is audacious enough to make a fundamentalist blush.
January 28, 2009 at 10:14 am
I don’t find it audacious in the least, particularly when one spends time in God’s Word and reads the stories it contains. Instead, it is statement of confidence and faith in His covenant, having seen His works throughout history. Is it boasting? Well, I don’t mind boasting in the Lord and the great things He has done.
I, for one, don’t think there’s anything God can’t do. Is that audacious? Nope, not at all, not to me. If that’s audacity, then perhaps we need more of it.
January 28, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Alan, these conversations always remind me what George Bernard Shaw said of the British and the Americans: “We are two people separated by a common language.”
Even though we share some common code words like “God’s word”, “covenant”, and “justice”, we mean very different things by these words. This is what happens when people claim to share a metanarrative, but actually do not.
Now it’s time for me to go watch Lost, which, coincidentally(?) is also about people who don’t know what their metanarrative is.
January 28, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Indeed.
January 29, 2009 at 9:15 am
Interesting. I don’t know how you think God’s Word means something different to me than it does to you. Unless, I suppose, that you don’t believe it is the infallible and authoritative Word to us.
I think that you’re simply making a series of incorrect assumptions — also not unlike the survivors of Oceanic Flight 815.
February 2, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I think Alan is right about some Presbyteries shifting in a progressive direction, but there seem to be many others that have not done so. It may be too early to generalize, although as I write this I am amazed at the huge shift in the Western North Carolina Presbytery. And that could be significant given that it is in a heartland of Presbyterianism and is a pretty conservative region overall.
What really strikes me is how much lower the vote totals are (pro and con) compared with the last time the Presbyteries voted.
February 2, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Also when discussing vote shifts, are we comparing the current voting with 2001 or 1996 or some combination of the previous votes??
February 2, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Oh dear for some reason I find I have much to say on this topic:
I demur from Alan’s larger point about the inevitability of change. There are a number of churches that seem to be even more opposed to women’s ordination, for example, than before. The Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God used to be more open to the idea of women’s ordination than they are now. They would also appear to be somewhat younger in membership than the white, liberal geriatric denominations that support women’s ordination.
Ditto for the PCA.
And there is the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church not to mention the Roman Catholic Church … both defiantly unfashionable on a whole range of issues.
February 3, 2009 at 12:37 pm
I was talking about 2001 vs. 2009. 22 Presbyteries have shifted in the right direction, somewhere between a few percent to as much as 19%, even if they’ve voted it down. And one has now flipped completely. On the other hand, only half that number, 11 presbyteries, have shifted in the wrong direction, but by smaller margins, and these are presbyteries that already had very low LGBT support anyway. No presbytery has flipped in the wrong direction yet.
So the title of this blog post is wrong. Clearly many, many minds have been changed.
Seeing these shifts is encouraging given that the folks who vote first are often the most conservative or most liberal presbyteries. We haven’t really seen what the more moderate presbyteries will do yet.
Maybe it won’t pass this time … but, if not, it certainly lays a strong foundation for the next time.
BTw, here’s a helpful resource for keeping up on the voting:
http://yeson08b.blogspot.com/
And on the topic of the inevitability of change, yes, there are still a lot of backward attitudes on women’s ordination in some pockets of Christendom. But to say, “Well, there are still a some conservatives left out there on this topic” is to ignore that, previously, that’s all there were, until a few decades ago. So, in just a few years, a major portion of Christendom has flipped on this issue. Of course this march to modernity is going to occasionally have a few stutters or missteps. But overall, it’s pretty easy to see which way the wind is blowing, and will continue to blow. It’s only a matter of time before other denominations start having to deal with these issues too … no one seriously believes there aren’t gay pastors in the EPC or the PCA, right? (It is no coincidence, I think, that it’s been the most conservative churches that have such serious problems with adulterous pastors getting outed recently. There’s change going on there too, but certainly not a type either of us approves of. That is, there is healthy change, and then there’s the lying, cheating, adulterous kind.)
I think those who find comfort in the status quo are kidding themselves if they think the status quo has ever been the status quo.
As Plank said, change comes one funeral at a time. While it took over a hundred years to go from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act, it has taken only 30 years to go from homosexuality being listed as a mental illness by the APA, to having LGBT people drive a small but important chunk of the political and religious discourse in this country, not to mention being so visible throughout our culture. Not so bad, actually.
As for the Catholics, I’m not surprised that they haven’t accepted women’s ordination yet … they haven’t even accepted the Reformation yet.
So, I’m not sure they’re such a great example. Instead, they’re probably a good example for why the Protestant churches *will* ultimately change. The Reformation really never stops in our churches.
February 3, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Well … although I don’t agree with the RCC on everything (obviously, since I am Protestant), I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss that particular body. They make up at least half of all Christians worldwide … by far the largest body. And it’s simplistic to say they haven’t recognized the Reformation, for two reasons: one is that they have in fact recognized it to some extent (Roman Catholics are quite willing to learn from Luther, for instance); two is that the original Reformation had nothing at all to do with women’s emancipation per se.
And when one considers, worldwide, the position of the overwhelming majority of churches on issues relating to sexuality and gender … the conservative position is pretty strong.
And as I previously mentioned, some denominations which were headed in a more liberal direction in general have turned away from that (SBC and Missouri Synod Lutheran for instance).
It is, in reality, the western branches of some churches that have moved in a liberal direction (while losing members at a significant rate). Is there any evidence that the vast majority of the world’s Christians are moving in that same direction?
The late Richard John Neuhaus once pointed out that 80% of all Christians belong to churches that do not recognize women’s ordination. Is that figure likely to change? I don’t think there is anything like the evidence out there to make such a claim.
And regarding sexuality, the percentage of officially gay affirming churches is vanishingly small worldwide. And to the extent that some churches have moved towards that position, they themselves are becoming vanishingly small as well.
Now, let me anticipate a possible objection you may have: because most people (or churches) believes something does not make it automatically right. So that’s not what I am getting at. I am in this case trying to argue that the inevitable tide of liberalism isn’t so inevitable after all.
To conclude with this thought: way back in 1959, I think it was Nikita Kruschchev who argued confidently that Communism would “bury” Capitalism. It was, he argued, an historical inevitability. And many people, including many in the West, whether pleased or appalled, agreed with him. Things turned out quite a bit differently.
February 3, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I should add one other thing … I think when you discuss western culture per se, you are on stronger ground. I do not argue with your contention that the culture has moved in the direction you indicate. There’s a lot of evidence to support that. But whether the churches are following the culture is another story. If your universe is confined to western liberal Protestant churches, then the answer is yes (I don’t disagree that the PCUSA may well be getting more liberal as conservatives either die or leave). But Christianity is so much more than that. And in that wider universe, I do not believe you can really show that things are changing in the direction you would like.
February 3, 2009 at 2:29 pm
What happens world-wide will be interesting to watch.
Unfortunately for your argument though, what we’re seeing in the rest of the world is not that churches outside the US have become more conservative. I think there’s very little evidence for that. And Christianity in the rest of the world is not monolithic. Several Catholic countries have become much more tolerant than the US, and a few have even instituted gay marriage. And, as time goes on, churches in developing countries will also change, though just as slowly as we have, I suspect. We in the US have the luxury of having the opportunity to have these silly arguments because we don’t spend so much of our time trying to make sure that we have something to eat, or worrying that we’re going to be thrown in jail as political prisoners. As conditions (hopefully) improve, I think you’ll see bigger changes around the world.
BTW, if one actually believes in the Reformational ideal of “the priesthood of all believers” then I would argue that the Reformation did not have nothing to do with women’s emancipation. Marriage was, in fact, a very, very big issue during the Reformation and cannot be separated from the impact that those shifts had on women’s rights. The fact that it took so long for many Protestants to realize that the priesthood of all believers actually includes *all believers*, doesn’t disprove my hypotheses.
And finally, I think it’s useful to separate out a church’s official stance from the stance of its members. It isn’t surprising that large numbers of Catholics around the world are against LGBT and women’s full inclusion in the church, given that the Catholic church is run by guy who is 81 years old (age being the most important predictor for LGBT tolerance.) More egalitarian churches will see change happen faster.
(BTW, the Khrushchev example is a great one. Freedom, liberty and equality win in the end. He was on the wrong side of history too.)
February 3, 2009 at 2:31 pm
BTW, in some developing countries, they are indeed quite conservative on LGBT issues … with even Archbishops calling for the death penalty for homosexuality. I’m not sure I’d be rooting for that sort of conservatism, even if I agreed with you on these issues.
February 3, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Alan,
Point well taken (in your last post).
February 3, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Alan,
Don’t you think the Anglican Church in Africa and Asia has become more conservative (or is more willing to declare its conservatism) in reaction to the increasing liberalism of the US Episcopal Church? That is the impression I’ve had. Would GAFCON have happened without the consecration of a gay Bishop in the US?
February 3, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Well, first, in what follows I’m talking only about the 3 or 4 very conservative Anglican Archbishops we hear about all the time in the news…..
I’m no expert on the Episcopalians. However, I’m not sure those in the developing world have become more conservative. I think they’re (ie. those Archbishops) are just more vocal about their so-call conservatism. For several reasons:
1) Money. Conservative churches (Anglican or not) in the US are funneling huge amounts of money to so-called conservative Anglican churches in Africa. I think this is primarily political.
2) Attention. Perhaps it’s due to the nature of Anglican polity, but I find it odd that we hear about the positions of these Archbishops all the time, but rarely hear much from their congregations. And, the more attention they receive over their disputes with the rest of the Anglican communion, the more money they make. (Lest anyone think I’m being particularly cynical about their motives, I’m not. They’re no different than anyone else. Ever seen a Presbyterian Lay Committee fundraising letter? If LGBT folks disappeared tomorrow, the PLC would go bankrupt by Friday. We should get a cut of their fundraising.)
3) I also think we hear more about their positions because conservatives in this country are uncritically looking for some kindred spirits as more folks in the US become more tolerant. Thus, I continue to see those Archbishops, especially, held up as the saviors of the Anglican communion, with little or no acknowledgement of where they *actually* stand re: homosexuality. As I’ve said, some of these folks have called for imprisonment, deportation, or stoning to death of LGBT people. Archbishop Akinola has additionally called for prison terms for *anyone*, including straight people, having anything to do with anything gay, like performing a same-sex marriage ceremony, advocating for LGBT rights, etc. in *any* context public or private. Yeah, great. What role models!
(Not to mention the folks who aren’t Anglican, like Rev. Ssempa, a guy who works closely with Rick Warren, and who likes to publicly burn huge piles of condoms in Uganda, a country with an enormous HIV infection rate. Brilliant.)
The sort of “conservatism” displayed by this small group of Archbishops and others bears very little resemblance (I hope) to the American brand. In fact, I’d say that most of what we’re seeing from some of these guys isn’t even conservatism, which is why I’m not sure they’re good evidence against my hypothesis regarding the advance of liberalism on these issues. The fact that these guys aren’t liberal doesn’t make them conservative, eh?
I also think the happy warm fuzzy feelings that some conservatives have over here toward some of their Anglican brothers in Africa is more akin to lazy “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” thinking, or perhaps also is occasionally motivated by patronizing attitudes toward Africa, and race, and a whole mix of other notions.
Anyway, instead of throwing them rafts of cash, they ought to be denounced loudly, not only by liberal Anglicans, but by any real conservative Christians. If you want to see a resurgence in real conservative Christianity, you really don’t want Akinola and friends leading it.
February 3, 2009 at 6:22 pm
BTW, just to re-emphasize my point about it being dangerous to overgeneralize in talking about Africa, let’s not forget that South Africa legalized gay marriage in 2005, and Bishop Tutu is hardly anyone’s notion of conservative.
More broadly, several developing countries around the world have recognized civil unions, something the US still can’t bring itself to do. So, I think it’s an overgeneralization to consider this just a western thing.
February 4, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Well, much as I hate to disagree with David Fischler, it seems some minds are being changed, at least among those who turn out to vote in these matters.
To Alan … I don’t have the time to give you a detailed response, but I think you’re making too many assumptions based on money. The conservative African prelates know they risk financial support from the Episcopal Church in the US through their stance … so I don’t know how much money has to do with them. And their churches are huge, indicating some level of agreement I would think (the Nigerian Anglican Church has 18 million adherents. The Ugandan Church has 9 million).
As for the Lay Committee … you know they formed back in 1967 or so, well before any controversies regarding sexuality arose. I think they would continue on whether or not homosexuality was in dispute. Issues of theology, politics in general, other church-related issues are pretty prominent in their coverage.
February 4, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I don’t mind the disagreement, John. I always thought that some of the presbyteries would change. The question is how many–a few, some, a lot, or enough to pass the change. Even with the two defections so far, I’m not at all sure that there will be enough.
Of course, I also thought the Cardinals would win on Sunday…
February 4, 2009 at 1:56 pm
RE: the Lay Committee. Yes, they try to make a convincing nod toward other issues in their “newspaper.” But I think they make their money off the backs of gays. Rarely does one see a two page screed about the dangers of the FOG in one of their fundraising letters, eh?
As for the conservative Anglican Archbishops, if they can make up the money they’d otherwise get from the liberals, I’m not sure they care.
Yet another Presbytery flipped, I see. This time, one that has less than 40% approval last time, so not even really a “swing” presbytery. (Lake Huron?? The Eastern side of Michigan is hardly a hotbed of liberalism.) As I’m genetically incapable of counting my chickens before they hatch, I’m not getting my hopes up here. But, as I said, if it goes the wrong way, it certainly sets up a good run for next time. Again, it isn’t just about these flips, though obviously they’re necessary for the win. It’s also about the significant movement in the right direction, even in those presbyteries that voted no.