The Question of How to Love

---

This is the text of my 20 minute address given on Thursday, January 25, 2001, to the Presbytery of Baltimore on the topic of "Unity in the Midst of Diversity," surrounding the issues raised by Amendment O. It was followed with an address by a person with an opposing viewpoint, and then with 45 minutes of small group discussion. Several people have requested that it be placed on the web so others can read it.

Amendment O is a proposal being voted on by the 173 presbyteries of the PCUSA denomination that if passed would prohibit ministers and church property from participating in the blessing of relationships outside the boundaries of faithfulness in marriage between one man and one woman, and chastity in singleness. This would effectively prohibit, among other things, participation in the so-called "holy unions" of gay and lesbian couples. For more information, you may go to the Presbyterian Coalition website.

Rev. Jerome D. Cooper,
Associate Pastor of Missions and Discipleship,
Central Presbyterian Church, Baltimore, MD

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon on the issue of "Unity in the Midst of Diversity," particularly as it pertains to how we relate to each other on issues of human sexuality. Let me begin with the disclaimer that I do not pretend to speak for all evangelicals. But I do hope to raise issues important for all of us, especially as we consider issues like Amendment O.

In this presbytery, and in our denomination as a whole, we often hear quoted part of the first of the historic principles of church government, namely G-1.0301(1)(a) which says:

That "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship."

Now this is almost always quoted out of context like a simplistic proof-text from the Bible. The second portion of that principle's description makes it clear that the principle is aimed at preventing the civil authorities from enacting laws contrary to the Biblical witness that would bind the conscience of not just the church, but all religious individuals and groups.

G-1.0301(1)(b) Therefore we consider the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as universal and unalienable: We do not even wish to see any religious constitution aided by the civil power, further than may be necessary for protection and security, and at the same time, be equal and common to all others.

The point here is religious freedom in our civil life. I believe we all would support that, whichever side of the current debate we are on. That leads us to the second historic principle of government which is no less important, and provides a check to those who would misinterpret the first principle in exactly the way which is so common today. G-1.0302 declares:

That, in perfect consistency with the above principle of common right, every Christian Church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ hath appointed; that in the exercise of this right they may, notwithstanding, err, in making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow; yet, even in this case, they do not infringe upon the liberty or the rights of others, but only make an improper use of their own.

In other words, every church will and must set boundaries. Not on the conscience, but on the basic way that it lives its community life. And I would dare say that these boundaries are often either too lax or too narrow, and may God give us the wisdom to discern when this is the case. We as a church do set boundaries. This is nothing new, unique or scandalous. But as we seek to set faithful limits, this in no way infringes upon the right of any person to live and believe as they desire, except that they may not exercise it in the community that has set that boundary. We all set boundaries - we must set boundaries - the question is where!!!

Next let me say that in our current situation with Amendment O, the boundaries that evangelicals seek to set are not a matter of bigotry or hate, but of love, specifically, HOW TO LOVE:

It is a common misconception within some parts of the church that evangelicals are less loving than others, and in fact, are downright unloving, even hateful toward gays and lesbians. Unfortunately, this is an ill-informed stereotype, and it is just this type of categorization, that continues to do great damage to the fabric of the church.

The issue before us is one of HOW to LOVE, rather than love vs. hate.

Speaking for the evangelical church I know I know best, my own, there are many members of Central who are deeply involved in the lives of the gay and lesbian community. From a couple that leads a Bible Study composed mostly of gays and lesbians who are active in that lifestyle; to a number of people who minister regularly to AIDS patients, most of whom are gay; to individuals involved in normal friendships with gays and lesbians; to those engaged in counseling relationships with persons seeking healing from the homosexual orientation and lifestyle. These many people are living in ways that express their deep love for others, including gays, lesbians, the bisexual and trans-gendered persons. The issue most assuredly is not one of whether we love, but HOW we love. And I know that this applies to the vast majority of evangelicals sitting in this presbytery right now.

Some of you may subscribe to the Christian Century. Well, the most recent issue arrived in my mailbox yesterday, and the first article, by Gilbert Meilander, was about love. It contained a story of a woman and her daughter, and the attempt of the mother to love her daughter in a particularly difficult circumstance. Let me read some excerpts for you.

Mary is a devout, believing Christian of the culturally conservative sort ... [who] has taken with full seriousness in her own life the marriage vow with its commitment to lifelong fidelity. But now her daughter Jennifer, after 20 years of marriage, has divorced her husband. Why? Because she does not love him... her marriage is dead and cannot be revived... She sought no counsel or direction from her pastor, nor, when her husband wanted to preserve the marriage, was she willing to go with him to any kind of counselor at all.

Clearly, this is a tragedy and a crisis for Mary... there was little that Mary could do to forestall the inevitable. Jennifer was set on divorce and could not be dissuaded. How does one still "support" such a daughter? How does one love unconditionally and devotedly a mother is supposed to love?

Jennifer knows what kind of support she wants. Her ex-husband is, by her lights, a villain and a jerk. All who love and support her must share that view... He was mean and hateful. Now, post-divorce, he seeks only to cause trouble... That is Jennifer's view - and hence, the view that must be shared by any who would love and support her.

Poor Mary. She has adopted Jennifer's view. Now slowly, gradually and reluctantly - but swiftly, with certitude and, one may even say, with a vengeance... It is not sufficient simply to try to help Jennifer. Not enough to continue to treat her with affection and concern... {Jennifer's ex-husband] must be ostracized as an evil man. That is what support of Jennifer now means.

... To fail to adopt Jennifer's view of the situation would be to risk losing a daughter. And what mother could do that? How could one love one's daughter and risk that?

Most of us, if counseling Mary would recognize her unhealthy kind of love, her failure to adequately differentiate herself from her daughter. But it seems that many in our church are moving in similar ways when it comes to loving others. We are taking on the view of the emerging post-modern culture that says to respect someone you must accept all that they do and believe as OK. Now, don't get me wrong here - I actually believe that much of the cultural post-modern shift is actually heading us back to more Biblical values, such as the movement from individualism to community, from rationalism to mystery, from hierarchy to equality and from mere quality to authenticity. But in this area of loving others, we need to be clear about the choice. There are two easy roads to walk:

Declare the sin and reject the individual, or
Deny the sin and accept the individual

But the road that Jesus walked was the hard one:

Declare the sin, and accept the individual

It is what we see in his encounter with the woman caught in adultery, go and sin no more! It is what we see in his continuing, consistent relationships with his closest disciples as he challenges them, and points out their weakness and sin precisely because he loves them.

I reiterate, at issue is not whether we love, but how we love most faithfully and fully.

A common argument I hear against Amendment O is that it will prevent a pastor or church from blessing an individual. This simply is not true. This misconception arises when we are incapable of distinguishing between the blessing of an individual and the blessing and encouragement of specific sin. Every time we bless an individual, we bless a sinful individual, for not one of us is without sin. Jesus himself blessed many people, including his disciples, without condoning the sin in their lives. To confuse the two is to be without spiritual discernment. It is possible to bless and love people quite profoundly while at the same time standing against the sin in their lives.

Let me illustrate with the true story of two brothers from my church:
The older brother was troubled in many ways, and got involved in a destructive lifestyle, including, drugs, alcohol, and eventually violence and robbery. The younger brother was a Christian who loved his brother very much. And the older brother knew it. He began to turn to his younger brother as a support and sometimes confessor. He knew that his younger brother did not agree with his lifestyle, he had made that clear. But he also knew that his brother was committed to him unconditionally. At times in the middle of the night he would come to his brother to talk, to cry, to work through his struggles. He would not listen to others who did not agree with his lifestyle, because the identification of his sin outside of a caring relationship seemed like rejection and condemnation. But from his younger brother, he could hear the truth because it came out of love.

The question is not whether we love, but how we love. It is not only possible to love and to speak the truth about sin, but it is the way of Christ. The problem with our denominational debates is that they are abstracted and removed from relationship in a way that makes the truth seem unloving. And if we don't know or trust one another, we assume the worst.

On the topic of love as it applies to our own Presbytery and the way that we speak to and about one another, I want to challenge this Presbytery on the subtle ways that it marginalizes people, and in this case specifically, evangelicals.

I was very disappointed by last meeting's presentation by Mr. Daly. Although his topic was "Unity in Diversity," it was anything but that. It was inaccurate, accusing, pejorative, and generally ungracious to the evangelicals within our denomination and the church at large. I imagine he thought this was a safe group in which to perpetuate an extreme, lopsided caricature of evangelicals. It is my hope that this is not a safe place for mischaracterization, false accusation and demeaning language - against anyone - liberal or conservative, homosexual or heterosexual, rich or poor, male or female, European-, African-, Asian-, Native or any other type of American, or any kind of person - period!

Unfortunately, the way that this Presbytery naturally speaks about evangelicals, in public and private, can be divisive, demeaning and inaccurate. What would you say about someone who categorizes a whole group of people with an inaccurate label meant to belittle and accuse, a term which that group does not accept as a name for itself? Is it abuse? Oppression? Arrogance?

I submit to you that when we throw around the terms "homophobia" and "homophobic" we are doing precisely that. It is not a term that describes me, or many of those who believe that certain types of sexual behavior are sinful. If you knew us and loved us, you would know the truth. We seek to be wholistically loving and compassionate people, giving our lives to others regardless of their category of sin. We are not fearful of gays and lesbians, but relate to them openly. Yet, I and others have been called "homophobic" on the floor of this presbytery with no justification.

These terms do not describe us. We do not claim these words as labels for ourselves. They have been forced on us by others, and unwittingly picked up and used by still others. But they remain at best unloving, inaccurate and misleading, and at worst, divisive, demeaning and damaging.

Who are we as a Presbytery?
Is this a safe place for all - or just for those who agree with the majority?
I leave that to your prayerful consideration.

Let me close by addressing the issue of the Bible. I have not said much about it so far today. The reason is that it seldom produces anything helpful. This is because we obviously have very different understandings of the nature of Scripture and its use. But let me be clear that this difference is not that one group takes the Bible seriously and the other does not. It is not that one side does good exegesis/interpretation and the other does not. The difference is that we have fundamentally different ways of thinking about the Bible, and this affects everything else. In general, the difference seems to be this (if you would allow me a broad generalization):

• Those who favor Amendment O (evangelicals we might say) generally view the Bible in its entirety as the Word of God, although given through human words, by human hands in a human context - and therefore it is in need of careful study.
• Those who oppose Amendment O (liberals, we might say) generally view the Bible as containing the Word of God, although it is up to us to determine the core truths from the merely human views found within its pages - and therefore it is in need of careful study.

Unfortunately, this makes most of our discussions about Scripture unfruitful, since we stay on the surface, rather than getting at the real issues of how we even perceive Scripture to be authoritative or not. It means we leave discussions frustrated, neither understanding nor feeling understood. We simply do not connect.

Let me close with a disclaimer as I started. I know I have not addressed every issue or point of debate, and others from my general perspective may have developed this talk very differently. My prayer is that my words may lead each of us into deeper examination and discussion as we struggle with "Unity in the Midst of Diversity."

Thank you.

(January 2001)