The recent vote of the 218th General Assembly has the effect of calling for a vote of Presbyterians on amending our church constitution to allow ordination of practicing homosexuals, whether they be deacons, elders, or pastors.

Homosexuals have always been acceptable as members, but not as church officers, presumably on the grounds that we are all sinners in God's sight and that "only those of us without sin should be allowed to cast the first stone." Why, then, the proponents would ask, should a different standard be used for church officers?

Unintended consequences

Seventy-four years of life experience have taught me to expect unintended consequences of most policy decisions, whether theological or secular (think Iraq, for example). In the case of changing policy in the Book of Order, voting Presbyterians need to think hard about such a decision's unintended consequences. The first consequence is that allowing ordination of practicing homosexuals will signal to the public that homosexual behavior is not a sin, rejecting the many places in the Old and New Testament that say it is a sin. This adds to the already widespread practice of Christians to pick and choose those sins mentioned in the Bible that are "convenient" to avoid.

The amendment also would repudiate scriptural injunctions for the church to be pure and lead people to Christ by their righteous example.  Scripture calls on church leaders to be judged by higher standards, precisely because they are role models and the public face of the church. If we are not careful, the pastor and elder "sales representatives" for the church may become more like used-car salesmen.

The denomination will most certainly be weakened by this amendment. Many of the 65+% people who voted down two similar motions in the past will leave PC(USA) if this amendment passes, further compounding our already serious problem of declining membership.

And who will leave if homosexual policy prevails? Certainly not the homosexuals. Why then should the rest of us have to leave? If Presbyterian homosexuals want more status, why don't they leave for a more compatible denomination? There are other denominations that accept homosexual clergy. Or they could choose to be celibate if being a minister is more important than indulging homosexual lifestyle.

When practicing homosexuals insist on the right to be ordained, they are using the church to promote their desire for more status. They indulge their sexual behavior and insist on having it endorsed by the church, even if it means that many members will be driven away from the church. Is it not enough that homosexuals be welcome as members? Why must they be allowed to be leaders and be the public face of the church? Why can't they find other ways to serve the Lord? Or why can't they be celibate? Weakening the church does not concern these people. Church unity is trumped by selfishness.

Finally, the proposed amendment lacks nuance. It equates deacons with elders and pastors. If we must accept homosexual leaders, why can't we limit practicing homosexuals to a church office that the public sees as less representative of the church? Many people recognize that deacons do not make policy nor interpret official theology. To make this distinction in the Presbyterian church, however, would require revising our rules of ordination, which make little distinction between deacons and the other officers of the church. If anything needs changing, perhaps it should be the rules of ordination to clarify who is authorized to make official policy and scriptural interpretation.

Bill Klemm
First Church

Bryan, Texas