A few ordinary Presbyterians.

What the Special Committee re Sexual Orientation has been doing for four years

What on earth is the General Assembly Special Committee re Sexual Orientation? After four years of work, it still seems to be the most misunderstood organization in the church.

Contrary to what we keep hearing, it isn't an alternative committee to the Committee on Church Doctrine, and it certainly isn't a coven of secretive zealots who are going to unleash terrifying new ways upon an unready church. No, we're a few ordinary Presbyterians faced with one of the least popular assignments in the church today. We meet twice a year with Rev. Wendy Paterson, the convener, and have enjoyed the hospitality of Knox College in Toronto, Crieff Hills in Puslinch, St Michael's House in Oakville and even the hallowed halls of 50 Wynford Drive in Toronto for our meetings. The members travel from Alberta and New Brunswick, and various places in between.

What do we do? The special committee has two principal mandates through overtures to various General Assemblies. These are broadly:

* to clarify the limits of the roles of homosexual people in the church

* to develop a scientific, psychological and medical, together with a pastoral, theological and biblical understanding of sexuality.

The creation of the committee was probably the result of a number of different concerns. First, of course, the increased awareness in society of homosexual people and the role they play. The question is frequently asked, "Where does the church stand?" The Presbyterian Church in Canada has had its own painful experience in Lachine, Quebec, over the attempt to ordain a minister who wished to be open with the fact that he is gay and living with another man. And the whole country had already watched the struggles within The United Church of Canada as it wrestled with the same issue. It was clearly time to look at our own position more closely.

The committee is probably a good picture of the diversity of Presbyterians from across the country. We consist of six ministers, one divinity student, two laypeople (one a sociologist and the other an engineer) and two consultants, one of whom is a gay doctor and the other being the principal clerk of the General Assembly. We were appointed by three Moderators of the General Assembly: John Congram, William Klempa and Arthur Van Seters, none of whom is noted as having wildly radical views. None of the members lobbied to be appointed to the committee -- far from it! A few found they were not truly called to do this work, and their places have been taken by others who were appointed in the same way. Perhaps the process has worked well because it has provided a diverse group that may find consensus difficult and can never legitimately be accused of being a special interest group.

Our process has been to adopt a listening role. Getting started was the hardest part, and one of the first decisions was to ask for stories from the church membership. The stories are still coming in, and you may have seen some of them in our report to the General Assembly last year. They cover the whole spectrum from pain and fear that jumps off the page, to hatred and bigotry that is breath-taking, the more so when it is offered in the name of God. These stories certainly sensitized the committee and prepared the members for much of what has happened since then. A small, but important group of stories and comments has come from former members of the United Church who joined with Presbyterians after their church's policy on ordination was put into effect.

The information gathering has been fascinating, and all the committee members have participated in it. The scientific consensus on the possible causes and the description of homosexuality seem to be generally accepted. Regardless of one's doctrinal viewpoint - and there are plenty of them -- there now seems to be little doubt that the only scientifically correct way to refer to sexuality is as an orientation that is a fundamental part of our make-up. For most gay people, the suggestion of choice is no longer supportable.

Because the scientific aspects of the study are well-documented, it is the biblical approach that continues to be the more stimulating. One of the high points of the entire study so far was a presentation at the last meeting by Patricia Dutcher-Walls, Old Testament professor at Knox College, Toronto. She discussed the "priestly theology" and the holiness code of the Old Testament in terms that were easy for the layperson to understand. This takes us to the beginning of the doctrinal path that led the church to the 1994 Statement on Human Sexuality, itself essential reading for anyone wishing to explore our church's present position. It gave this committee member a better understanding of Leviticus and helped to shift my views onto more solid ground. At the last meeting, we also received a paper on ordination from Dr. Joseph McLelland and had a presentation by Dr. William Klempa on homosexuality and the church. At the next meeting, a New Testament scholar will speak to us. We also hope to have a joint meeting with the Committee on Church Doctrine.

One thing that has been made clear from our information gathering is that, in order to understand the nature of sexuality, we need to move away from the popular use of the phrase "life-style choice" to define a person's place in the spectrum of sexuality. "Orientation" is more accurate and a better description. The analogy I like to draw is that the big red sports car I used to drive was, without doubt, a lifestyle choice. My rapidly spreading bald patch is something inherent in my body and is, definitely, not my own choice, far less a life-style. Like my sexuality, my baldness is part of the package, and I was not given any choice in the matter.

The social, as well as religious, history of sexuality is important background knowledge for any serious study. In most countries, it is a long time since homosexual activity was a criminal offence to be punished by imprisonment and treated by brutal drug therapies. However, there are still organizations that claim to be able to change orientations by other methods.

The feeling at the moment among committee members seems to be that we should aim for a non-prescriptive final report: a report that will not be the final word. The reality of a committee such as this is that a consensus that would allow a prescriptive report is an unlikely goal and, in that, we simply reflect the reality of the church as a whole. Indeed, we could hardly claim to be Presbyterian if we were to say the last word has been said on any topic. The aim is that the church should show its faith in the ability of the Holy Spirit, not simply one small committee, to guide it forward as an undivided body, perhaps to a position as yet unimagined by any of us.

We hope to be able to present as much as possible of the information we've gathered in a form that will involve the whole church in the continuing process of learning and, thus, allow it to move ahead in an informed way. The most important aspect by far is the educational one, and I'm living proof that better Bible knowledge is a high priority. Some of the questions posed in the briefing groups at last year's Assembly showed the need for more open discussion and a better understanding within the membership of the church, including some ministers. They showed, too, that although people may differ profoundly in their opinions, we get ahead by standing side by side, learning together and looking forward together, not by facing off against each other and butting heads.

The present plan, therefore, is to have a study package, consisting of the material we've gathered from a wide variety of sources, prepared for distribution by the time of the 2002 General Assembly. No doubt there will be further reflection from the feedback, which should allow us to prepare a final report that will, we hope, come to the 2003 Assembly.

As an individual committee member, my personal hope is that one outcome of our work will be that we shall no longer talk of "sides" in continuing the church's discussions on sexuality. To do so is to attempt to divide the indivisible Body of Christ. The mission of all of us, regardless of our differing views, is surely to work for the unity of the church so that it may continue to be a force for good in the world.

Andrew Foster is an elder of Central Church, Cambridge, Ont., and a member of the Special Committee re Sexual Orientation.

Members of the Special Committee re Sexual Orientation

Rev. Wendy Paterson (convener), Windsor, Ont.

Georgia Cordes (secretary), Winnipeg

Rev. Philip Lee, Saint John, N.B.

Rev. Alice Wilson, Hanover, Ont.

Amanda Currie, Ottawa

Rev. Kevin Livingston, Toronto

Rev. Dianne Ollerenshaw, Calgary

Rev. Stewart Gillan, Toronto

Andrew Foster, Cambridge. Ont.

Rev. Stephen Kendall (consultant), Toronto

Dr. Richard Isaac (consultant), Toronto