I have been on the road all week so I must confess that I am way behind on my Summer of Sex readings, which is that annual wave of mainstream-media coverage of debates in the oldline Protestant denominations about you know what.
This week it was the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) trying to decide, once again, whether to redefine the word “marriage” and to publicly recognize the pro-gay-rights changes that are already old hat in the church’s seminaries, bureaucracies and in most of its blue-zip-code churches. The denomination has been stuck on pause for years now as doctrinal traditionalists keep managing to defeat the legislation — somehow.
I scanned some of the coverage this morning and, you know, I had no idea that this story was so boring.
B.O.R.I.N.G. I mean, check out this story from the Courier-Journal in Louisville, as it ran in USA Today. Now, Louisville is the home of the PCUSA establishment, so you would think that there would be all kinds of informed, articulate voices to quote on a story this emotional, this symbolic, this doctrinal.
Apparently not. Even on the left, all we get is words off a piece of paper. Where are the gay theologians who can explain their biblical reasons for seeking these changes? For example:
The assembly’s committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues voted 34-18 to change the definition of marriage in the church constitution to describe marriage as a covenant between “two people” rather than between “a man and a woman.” This “would recognize committed, lifelong relationships that are already being lived out by our members,” said a committee statement.
Both measures would require passage by the full General Assembly later this week, but their passage by strong majorities in committee shows they have strong prospects.
Since they would involve changes to the church constitution, however, the measures would face a tough ratification vote among regional presbyteries in the coming year. Those bodies have repeatedly rejected gay-ordination proposals since the mid-1990s, but the margin of defeat narrowed in the most recent round of voting ending in 2008.
Wow. Exciting stuff. Needless to say, the story comes up a bit short when it comes to finding informed traditionalist voices to explain the reasons behind that coalition’s repeated victories at the coast-to-coast level.
Supporters of the ban say the Bible condemns homosexuality as sinful, and defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Can you feel the passion? Yes, readers, it doesn’t get any more exciting and balanced than that.
As it turns out, late in the week the national assembly decided to stall at the switch — again. This led to more coverage that is rather lukewarm. The basic Associated Press update, at least, found some informed voices to quote, both on the side of the establishment:
“We Presbyterians love to study, which is not a bad thing,” said Cindy Bolbach, an elder at National Capital Presbytery in Washington and the assembly’s elected moderator. “We’re talking about some major new steps.”
But supporters say Presbyterians have spent enough time mulling it over.
“I think we’re seeing acts of desperation by those who feel their way of life is slipping away,” the Rev. Ray Bagnuolo, the openly gay pastor of Janhus Presbyterian Church in New York City, said after the marriage vote. “Progress takes time. But to gay and lesbian people, it says their relationships, who they are, does not matter to this church. I don’t call that Christian or loving.”
And, brace yourself, the story also quotes a conservative.
“I didn’t see this turn of events coming,” said Jerry Andrews, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in San Diego. … “I think as the day went on, the mood became more conservative,” Andrews said.
Now, what is missing here? Why doesn’t the denomination make a clear move on this issue?
Well, some facts might help. Might it have something to do with declining membership totals? Financial cuts at the national level? Is there some fear of driving away even more people in the regions of the country where population is rising and church attendance is at least flat or in a slower decline?
Just asking. So there was no major story to cover this time. Why? Maybe that’s a story.
 | Posted at 1:17 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (17) |
July 10, 2010, at 1:43 pm
Hmmm…”declining membership totals”?
I was under the impression that the Presbys were among the fastest growing denominations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 10, 2010, at 1:47 pm
Not in America. Click the link and surf some of the coverage of that issue and the numbers.
Rapid decline. The most frightening stats are linked to baptisms, birth rates and the age of the surviving people in the pews.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 10, 2010, at 2:36 pm
The PCA is growing but not as fast as it used to.
PCUSA is burying more people than it baptizes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 10, 2010, at 3:00 pm
BOB:
We live in such an ironic age. Even the NEW denominations that grew out of the splinters of the OLD denominations are now being shredded on their borders by the growth of the POST denominational churches.
Toss in the Pentecostal revolutions INSIDE some of the existing churches (think Anglicans in Africa) and you have a stunningly complex scene.
But one overwhelming reality: The old mainline is no longer the mainline and it is old, old, old. I don’t think there IS a mainline now. That’s the point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 10, 2010, at 4:02 pm
I’m a real, live Presbyterian! (Though not in the mainline PCUSA, but in the sideline OPC.) Did somebody ring?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 10, 2010, at 5:33 pm
The coverage biases its frame by calling this a change in the definition of marriage, rather than a change in its scope.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 10, 2010, at 6:17 pm
It takes conflict to make a truly interesting story. However, it seems the media approved narrative of what is going on in so many Protestant mainstream churches is that they are wisely adopting secular morality and that there is no opposition to such which can be taken seriously—thus there isn’t much of real conflict out of which to make an interesting story. And, of course, that aura of inevitability (much of it media induced by the tone and spin of its coverage)) aids the march of secularization in the churches.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 10, 2010, at 8:25 pm
Deacon, I’m pretty sure Terry is just being cute, but the above sounds like you actually believe the media’s relatively juiceless coverage here is part of a plot to advance the gay agenda. What can they do that would please you? If they cover a gay story with empathy, they’re “cheerleading.” If they mute coverage, they’re promoting “inevitability.” If you can only be satisfied when they condemn it, your problem is their opinion, not how they advance it.
You bias your frame of the issue by labeling gay justice as secular. It is prefectly possible to have theologically grounded gay justice — Unitarian Universalism, for example — but it has to look at the science, not “natural law.” Some theologies have done this for decades. If the media are indeed plotting to deliberately impose secular morality then they are framing “secular” the same way you do, and somehow I doubt that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 10, 2010, at 8:53 pm
DAVE:
There is no question that a victory of the doctrinal left on this issue will get massive favorable coverage. It’s the template of the future, from that point of view.
The silence/boring coverage of the stalemate is simply that there is NO NEWS is the change does not take place. It is boring coverage of what is seen as a boring story. That is why there is little interest in the facts of WHY the traditional view SORT OF wins (the line in the sand keeps inching left, after all), that would require having an interest in the arguments and facts on both sides of the debate. That interest is simply not there. That is a JOURNALISTIC problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 10, 2010, at 9:19 pm
One reason the coverage was boring is that few if any reporters were there. Those of us who were covering the event, because of the marriage vote, were doing so by watching the proceedings on the internet. It’s hard to get real live people in a story when the real live people involved are 900 miles away.
We got some locals to weigh in for our story (a combination of local coverage and AP wire coverage. Even then, the vote happened on marriage happened at around 10:30, after our print deadline. (And after a long debate over the immigration related laws in Arizona.)
In our coverage, we mentioned early on that this kind of decision by the general assembly had been defeated before.
We also did a long story about PCUSA decline last year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 11, 2010, at 5:14 am
Dave, what on earth is the “science”? Look at the stories about the human genome and how the science of the “Individualised medicine! Cures for all diseases! Within the next ten years!” is a heck of a lot more complicated than “there’s a gay gene that infalliby and inevitably makes gay people gay and that’s that”.
Unfortunately, religions do tend to go by theology rather than the zeitgeist. The science of evolutionary psychology may tell us that humans are polygamous like bonobos (I don’t believe any such thing, but let’s take one popular story that’s often floated).
Well, good. Does that mean that, as you put it, the scope of marriage should be redefined to “between more than two and fewer than six people”? If we’re making cases for changing practice, there’s a better case for proving polygamy out of Scripture than same-sex marriage.
Civil unions are one thing, and personally I could see a case for secular law acknowledging such as a matter of natural justice. But when it comes to sacramental marriage, or the internal discipline of a religious denomination, then I think that the theology rather than the science has the last say.
Besides, I don’t think that science can be the court of last resort when we’re talking metaphysics. Science may ‘prove’ I’ve got genes disposing me to be more violent and hence more likely to resort to murder in a dispute; that does not mean that I get a pass on the Fifth Commandment (Catholic numbering):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128043329&ps=cprs
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 11, 2010, at 5:27 am
Another real live Presbyterian here. PCUSA, three hours east of the general assembly this year. As a member of a rural, theologically ‘mixed’ congregation, I guess I don’t even pay too much attention to the big, social ‘justice’ issues discussed at GA. It doesn’t really make much difference here. The REAL issues are the decline in younger members, as children of the old farming families move to the cites, the change in the population in this small town, and how we can serve that population, and just the ‘tiredness’ of the people who continue to serve. Neither theology or science. Just survival.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 11, 2010, at 11:13 am
Journalism, people. Back to the journalism of the story.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 11, 2010, at 12:49 pm
The bloodless coverage may simply reflect the mood of the folks involved (I’m a PCUSA minister and ex-reporter).
At past assemblies when the same decisions were made regarding ordination, liberal groups within the denomination held celebratory press conferences and evangelical groups issued withering critiques. This year, as far as I can tell, the basic response has been a shrug. We’ve done this before; no doubt we’ll do it again. Even the debate was somewhat perfunctory.
There’s no question that the AP piece, in particular, could have been spiced up with info about membership declines, etc. But it’s hard to write an exciting story about bored people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 11, 2010, at 12:54 pm
P.S.: Even the AP’s photos were boring, mostly just people standing in line. Could have included a shot of this, at any rate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 11, 2010, at 2:23 pm
Tmatt: I’m a real, live Presbyterian (EPC, sorry), but I’ve been posting on the PCUSA GA all week. I’m no reporter, but you would probably learn more from me than anything AP put out. If you don’t mind my tooting my own horn:
The Reformed Pastor
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 13, 2010, at 11:27 am
Two small quibbles, one about Terry’s piece, one about the AP update:
(1) “old hat in the denomination’s seminaries” — shouldn’t that be “some of the denomination’s seminaries”? In the 90s, Princeton, the largest and oldest PCUSA seminary, did its best to teach students about the movement for gay rights, and to live with those who supported same, while making it pretty clear that the weight of the administration and faculty were on the other side of the question. Has that changed?
(2) “Janhus Presbyterian Church” is really Jan Hus Presbyterian Church. The single-word version is their website, for heaven’s sake. Don’t these people have proofreaders?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0