I've been a minister in the Presbyterian Church for over twenty-five years now and for most of that time our denomination has been involved in a difficult conversation regarding the ordination to ministry of candidates who declare themselves to be gay or lesbian. At last year's General Assembly, a strong majority of commissioners felt that they had finally arrived at a compromise which promised to bring a resolution to this matter and peace to the church. The proponents of "Amendment A," which the Assembly sent to the presbyteries for a vote, claimed that it would do at least four things in the life of the church. They are well expressed in four "R-verbs."
First, the amendment removes all constitutional barriers to the ordination of gay and lesbian candidates. Second, it restores to the church the historic criteria for ordination which have governed our denomination for much of its history. Third, it returns the decision-making authority on ordination to presbyteries and congregations. And, finally, it respects the rights of congregations and presbyteries who choose not to ordain -- nor to honor the ordination of -- gay and lesbian persons.
Many of us -- myself included -- allowed ourselves to hope that this approach could bring much needed healing to our church and allow us, finally, to begin focusing our attention on urgent matters of mission which have suffered from our neglect. Unfortunately, from my standpoint, Amendment A is not going to be ratified by the presbyteries. Also unfortunately, from my standpoint, there is growing concern across the church that the winning side in this struggle may seize the occasion to pursue aggressive efforts aimed at purging the church of those who find the current prohibition unacceptable.
So the questions many of us are asking ourselves these days run something like this: Can the two sides which have taken shape around this issue continue to inhabit the same church? Should the two sides which have taken shape around this issue continue to inhabit the same church? What guidance do we find in scripture about this?
I want to tell you this morning about Romans 14 and encourage you to think with me about where this great chapter from Paul's letter might lead us. Many scholars have concluded that Romans 14 is in some important ways the culmination of Paul's argument in the entire epistle -- it's what he's been driving toward.
And what Romans 14 basically is is an appeal to the two main groups in the Roman church -- groups which Paul calls "the strong" and "the weak" -- to live in harmony with one another.
As Paul uses these terms, "the strong" are Christians like himself who do not feel that they are bound to the provisions of the Old Testament's Holiness Code, who have no qualms about setting them aside, whose consciences are not troubled by the fact that they are not in conformity with the rules of Jewish scripture, who claim the freedom to discern the way of love and to follow it even though it brings them in conflict with the tradition.
"The weak," on the other hand, are those who do observe the provisions of the Holiness Code, who do have qualms about setting it aside, whose consciences will not allow them to be out of conformity with scriptural rules, and who do not believe they have the freedom to reject any of the particulars of the tradition. I'll let you decide who, in our current situation, are "the strong" and who are "the weak."
But you might find yourself objecting to Paul's use of these terms. After all, to call one group "the strong" is to compliment them and to call the other "the weak" is hardly a compliment. You could say that Paul puts himself among "the strong," so he naturally prefers a more complimentary term for his own group. But I think there's more to it than that. I think Paul knows that those who defend the particular rules of a tradition are tempted to vaunt themselves and thus need a little humbling. So he calls them "the weak." And I think he also knows that those who give themselves some freedom from the tradition may appear to be strong but deep within may have some real self-doubt about their rejection of the tradition so -- to encourage them -- he calls them "the strong."
At any rate, in Paul's message to "the strong" and "the weak" in Rome, I hear four points which are both remarkable and relevant to us today. First of all, Paul does not insist on uniformity of conscience as a pre-condition of unity in the church. He is quite clear that the two groups must let each other be different and not try to force everybody into the same mold.
But, secondly, Paul does insist that since God has welcomed both the strong and the weak, they must welcome each other. Not to welcome those whom God has welcomed is to offend God! Thirdly, one of the clearest expressions of the welcome "the strong" and "the weak" owe to each other is the refusal to pass judgment on each other.
That refusal is based on the recognition that each of us is accountable to God, so judgment must be left to God and not taken into our own hands.
Finally, and this may be the most important point of all, a community like this -- a community in which the strong and the weak learn to live together in peace -- is worth all the pain it can involve because: a) it shows the power of the gospel to create unity without requiring uniformity and b) it provides a strong base from which the gospel can be shared with the world.
In one sense, many scholars think, to make this point was Paul's main purpose in writing the letter!
So there's a lot of guidance we can find here if we're open to it. But there is one problem. In Paul's day, "the strong" had the upper hand and he thus made his most pressing appeal to them, that they welcome "the weak" and respect their right to follow their scruples. In our time, on the other hand, it seems as if "the weak" are gaining the upper hand and that at least some of them are tempted to use this position against "the strong." So what are we to do?
I want to be very clear here that when I say "we" I am referring now to those of us who are saddened by the defeat of Amendment A and concerned about what the future might hold for the church. I know very well that that does not include all of us and I'm okay with that. I want the church to be truly diverse. But just for now, I want to address those who join me in sorrow and concern.
First of all, we simply must keep listening to Paul's urgent appeals to us to avoid passing judgment upon or despising those sisters and brothers who share the church with us. They may irritate us; they may strike us as backward in their thinking; or as legalistic; but, as Paul wants us to ask ourselves, "Who are we to pass judgment on the servants of another?"
But, on the other hand, we must be prepared to assert and defend the liberty of conscience we have found in the gospel and not to allow any other faction in the church to insist that everyone has to honor their scruples or leave. If we ever allow that to happen, then the church's unity will be reduced to uniformity and it will no longer demonstrate the power of the gospel to create unity in diversity, nor will it be a solid base from which to share God's liberating gospel with the world.
Every time I get discouraged about the church, I remember a professor in seminary years ago. He had been a missionary working in the church of South India. One day he told us of a time during those years when he had grown completely exasperated with the church and nearly hopeless about its future. As a result, he went out by himself to a hillside to pray. He threw himself on his knees, looked up at the sky and said, "God, sometimes it feels like I care more about your church than you do!"
My classmates and I were a little astonished that our teacher could have said such a thing, so after a long pause we said, "And?" He kind of winked at us and said, "Just then I sort of heard a voice that said,
"I died for it; what have you done?"
How important it is for us to remember that as much as we care about the church, its future is not first and foremost in our hands but rather in the hands of One who has loved it far more than we ever have and continues to love it far more than we ever will. It is for that reason that we can have hope for the church, hope that one day the great love with which we've been loved will become the great love with which we love one another. Amen.