Presbyterians are divided on whether same-sex marriage should be allowed. According to results from the February 2012 Presbyterian Panel survey more members and ruling elders are opposed to same-sex marriage than in favor, while more teaching elders are in favor rather than opposed.  

Around one-half of members (51 percent) and ruling elders (48 percent) oppose same-sex marriage, while more than one in three are in favor (34 percent; 38 percent); the rest are not sure.

Among teaching elders, half of pastors (49 percent) and six in ten specialized ministers (61 percent) support same-sex marriage, while 41 percent and 28 percent, respectively, are opposed. 

There has been a significant increase in Presbyterian support for same-sex marriage since 2005, when only 13 percent of members, 22 percent of ruling elders, 35 percent of pastors, and 51 percent of specialized ministers were in favor of allowing same-sex couples to wed. 

These changes parallel those occurring more broadly in American society. Support for same-sex marriage among the U.S. population has increased from 37 percent to 50 percent over the same period, according to the Gallup Poll.

“Many Presbyterians seem to be ‘evolving’ along with President Obama,” said Jack Marcum, coordinator of Research Services for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Last week, the President indicated that he now supports same-sex marriage, while previously he had only endorsed civil unions for same-sex couples.

On a related issue, that of allowing teaching elders to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, Presbyterians are also divided. About one-third of members (32 percent) and ruling elders (36 percent), 44 percent of pastors, and 58 percent of teaching elders favor allowing teaching elders to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies in locations where same-sex marriage is legal, according to another recent Presbyterian Panel survey.Most other respondents are opposed to giving such permission to teaching elders (49 percent, 50 percent, 44 percent, and 32 percent, respectively), though at least one in ten in every group are not sure (19 percent; 14 percent; 11 percent; 10 percent).

“Opinions on allowing ministers to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies largely mirror those on same-sex marriage itself,” said Perry Chang, Presbyterian Panel administrator. “While pastors are fairly evenly divided, other teaching elders show more support than opposition, while the opposite is true among people in the pews.”

Meeting in Minneapolis two years ago, the PC(USA) General Assembly issued a divided report on same-sex marriage, and the issue is likely to resurface at the Assembly this July in Pittsburgh.

Every three years the PC(USA) Research Services office assembles representative samples of Presbyterian church members, ruling elders, and teaching elders to respond to questions on different topics quarterly. Known as the Presbyterian Panel, these randomly chosen respondents form a vital means for church leaders to learn about the beliefs and experiences of rank-and-file Presbyterians.

For more information about Panel surveys and other Research Services studies and services, visit the Research Services website or contact Research Services at (800) 728-7228, ext. 5071, or by email.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) comprises more than 2 million members in more than 10,000 congregations, answering Christ’s call to mission and ministry throughout the United States and the world.

Two synods in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are doing their best to address a burning question plaguing the denomination and greater church alike.

“How are we to respond with the gospel in the 21^st century when we have a church that is largely functioning out of a cultural context that no longer exists?” asked the Rev. Bob Conover, executive presbyter and stated clerk of the Presbytery of the Redwoods. “This is the only question before the church these days.”

The synods of Pacific and Southern California and Hawaii are actively trying to respond to this question through the Cultivating Leadership in a Time of Discontinuity project. The year-long effort, made possible with funds from the Heiserman Grant program, aims to equip pastors and congregations in making the church relevant for today.

The program is supported by a $104,000 Heiserman Grant through the General Assembly Mission Council of the PC(USA).

Funds for the Heiserman program came from a bequest made in 1966 by Geraldine Heiserman, who was the widow of a Yuma, Colo., farmer and landowner named Lemont Heiserman. The bulk of their estate was left in trust to the church. The GAMC divided more than $990,000 of that gift among 16 synods to encourage mission projects that reflect partnership between or among two or more synods and-or the GAMC.

This leadership issue “can only be addressed by individual pastors and individual congregations making shifts that are appropriate to who they are and to who the culture is,” said Conover. At the same time, “we need to do this work together. We can’t do it on our own.”

The cultivating leadership program began in May 2011 with an all-day orientation event in three locations to help pastors learn about the program. From there, cohort groups of six to eight members were formed and have met once a month for a year. Eleven cohort groups were developed between the two synods.

The group members’ work has included developing spiritual practices, undergoing leadership assessments, reading together and developing adaptive leadership challenges for themselves and their congregations, Conover said.

Their last group meetings will be in May. On June 9 all participants are invited to bring two or three congregations leaders to a daylong event “to begin assessing whether or not their congregation might move forward in a similar process, but for their church,” Conover said.

The Presbytery of the Redwoods already has congregations who will be moving forward, he said. “We have hardly even begun.”

Ultimately, this is about reforming “the purpose of the church,” Conover said. “It’s about reforming our identity.”

Toya Richards, a student at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, writes frequently for Presbyterian News Service.

Mark Twain commented that “You never see Presbyterians ranting, shouting and tearing up the ground. You never heard of a Presbyterian going crazy on religion… You never see any of us Presbyterians getting in a sweat about religion and trying to massacre the neighbors.” Presumably to this famous American author, Presbyterians were God’s “Frozen Chosen.”

Presbyterian Henry Van Dyke offered another impression. He called us “God’s Silly People.” Van Dyke applied this term for several reasons. First, he opined, “Presbyterians have a propensity to quarrel amongst themselves and divide their forces on minor issues.” And secondly, he suggested, “Presbyterians have an almost incredible indifferences to the real significance of their own history.”

One reason Presbyterian churches had lost power and influence, Van Dyke reasoned, “is because our Presbyterian people have failed to …. preserve and cherish the heritage of the past and draw courage and inspiration for the present from (the past). Van Dyke believed that Presbyterians, besides being a contentious people, did not learn very much from their history. He wrote that in 1906.

I would suggest Mark Twain got it wrong and Henry Van Dyke got it right

Even a cursory glance at our history shows Twain was off-base. Since the Reformation (and certainly long before it), conflict has been an essential part of the Reformed tradition. Our Presbyterian and Reformed past reflects divisiveness on great moral and theological issues, as well as a variety of lesser important issues.

Presbyterians are a discerning people who seek the will of God through reading the Bible, prayer and being in communion with each other and other Christians. But the discernment process has meant that Presbyterians have a long history of disagreement, conflict, schism, and reunions.

The conflict and divisiveness within the PC (USA) today is part of a broader pattern that is deeply rooted in our past. The “flash points” that have produced these conflicts may be different, but the underlying tensions that birthed them are remarkably similar.

What is new is that these conflicts and tensions feel new to us. I suspect that these tensions feel new because we are trying to understand them outside of any historical framework.

Since at least the early 1700s, American Presbyterians have disagreed about many issues that continue to surface in new ways with each succeeding generation. Part of understanding the current version of conflict within the PC(USA) requires some grasp of what has historically divided us as a people of God. I would suggest there are at least five broad areas that have shaped both past and present disagreements.

 These include, in no particular order:

• the role of our confessions and our basic theological beliefs;
• the Bible as the “literal vs. inspired” Word of God;
• our polity as a reflection of our theology;
• church and state relationships; and
• the prophetic witness dilemma.

All are interrelated. My research suggests that since the early 18th century, the Presbyterian family has been divided by well over 20 major conflicts that frequently led to division and schism. A few examples will perhaps illustrate the pattern.

Conflicts involving polity, theology and orthodoxy

After the Presbyterian Synod was organized in the early 18th century, it took steps to adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms as the theological standard for the denomination.

But initially, many Presbyterians feared that strict adherence to a confessional standard would replace the Bible in the life and ministry of the church. Eventually, a compromise was reached in 1729 that provided a standard and yet allowed a means by which to deal with disagreements while preserving the unity of the church.

The conflict over the Westminster Standards, though resolved by compromise, set the stage for a more complicated division that ultimately resulted in a schism in 1741. Old Side and New Side Presbyterians found themselves at odds on a variety of issues, including the education of clergy, the role of itinerancy, the necessity of a conversion experience as a prelude to salvation and other concerns.

Compromise was not possible as the two sides were so bitterly divided that each organized its own synod. The schism lasted until 1758 when both Old and New Side synods reconciled and reunited.

Over the next century, Presbyterians found themselves at odds regarding church and state issues, theological differences, moral issues, ecumenical agreements and partnerships. Many of these issues, along with those that produced the first schism a century earlier, resulted in another division in the 1830s.

Old School Presbyterians and their New School counterparts went their separate ways in 1838 because their differences were simply irreconcilable. Historian James Moorhead noted the following, which appeared in a Philadelphia newspaper in 1838: 

          “The necessity for the separation of the parties is urgent. They do not agree; they cannot
          agree. We can scarcely conceive of two parties more antagonistic in all the principles of
          their belief and practice; they receive not the same Gospel; they adopt not the same moral
          code.”

At the 1838 General Assembly, the Old School Presbyterians expelled the New School adherents. For more than three decades, the two remained apart. In 1869, the two sides reunited when those “irreconcilable differences” were reconciled.

In the 1920s and 1930s, conflicts over theology and ecclesiology between Presbyterian progressives, moderates, conservative, orthodox and fundamentalists in some ways echoed back to Old/New Side and Old/New School divisions and foreshadowed the current divisions within the PC(USA).

The split that occurred as a result of what has been called the “Fundamentalist and Modernist Controversy” was driven by protagonists who sought, in the words of Professor Bradley Longfield, “to preserve the influence of Christianity in a dramatically changed and radically changing world,” a world that was “steadily moving away from distinctively Christian influences.”

In other words, it was a contest between those who believed in a rigid orthodoxy and those who did not. And in that struggle, those who believed in inclusiveness prevailed.

I began this effort with Mark Twain’s erroneous comments about the placidity of Presbyterians. I conclude with the story of a Presbyterian family that in many ways reflects that historical journey.

In 1936, the Presbytery of Philadelphia deposed Edwin H. Rian from the ministry because of his role in helping to found the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Eleven years later, Rian asked to be reinstated and the Committee on Candidates and Credentials of the Presbytery of Philadelphia recommended that he be restored.

In his statement, “Why I Am Re-Entering the Ministry of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.,” he attested that:

      “The process which led me to this judgment (to leave the PC(USA) was a slow and painful   
      experience and disillusionments, but culminated by a clear conviction of the scriptural
      reaching on the visible Church of Jesus Christ. I am now firmly convinced that the
      formation of the Independent Board of Presbyterian Foreign Missions and the separatist
      movement that fostered it was wrong, because it disrupted the unity of the Church of Jesus
      Christ … I am now certain that it was wrong to form the separatist movement in 1938 and
      to proclaim the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as apostate. My eleven years of
      association with that separatist movement have only confirmed the teaching of the
      scriptures on the visible Church and the mistake of withdrawing from one of its true,
      visible branches. My regret is that I did not see this clearly eleven years ago.”

More than 50 years after Edwin Rian was reinstated, another member of the Rian family opined why she was a member of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Abigail Rian Evans, daughter of Edwin Rian, was born into the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, participated in the UPCUSA in high school, served as a missionary under the Brazilian Presbyterian Church, was a synod executive in the PCUS and after reunion, the PC(USA).

In 2001, she averred, “the overriding, pre-eminent reason why I am a Presbyterian is the teaching of God’s grace as revealed in Jesus Christ. I could never have passed through the trials and tribulations and struggles of my life without being carried in God’s arms and living in a state of forgiveness.”

Like her father, Abigail Rian Evans understood that God’s grace and the love and example of Jesus Christ build up the body of Christ despite the fractures, fissures, divisions and schism that have defined Presbyterians since the beginning.

Frederick J. Heuser is associate stated clerk and executive director of the Presbyterian Historical Society. His article also appeared in “The Presbyterian Outlook.”

The statistics, some evangelicals say, can no longer be ignored.

Eighty percent of young evangelicals have engaged in premarital sex, according to a new video from the National Association of Evangelicals, and almost a third of evangelicals’ unplanned pregnancies end in abortion.

It’s time to speak honestly aout sex because abstinence campaigns and anti-abortion crusades often aren’t resonating in their own pews, evangelical leaders say.In some instances, that is beginning to happen:

• At this month’s Q conference in Washington, participants were asked at the end of a session on “reducing abortion” if churches should support the use of contraception among their single 20-somethings. Responding by text message, 64 percent said yes, 36 percent said no.
• A “Sexuality and Covenant” conference April 19-21 co-sponsored by Mercer University and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship included on its agenda the statement that “marital sexual relationships” are not available for many Christians.
• In addition to its video, the NAE is preparing to distribute information packets to pastors that include testimonies from birth mothers and adoptees, as well as definitions of almost a dozen “prevention methods” ranging from abstinence to sterilization.

“This cultural moment calls for a both/and approach that I think can be challenging for churches,” said Jenell Williams Paris, a Messiah College professor, at the Q conference. “Both lift up the ideal of premarital chastity, and support people who do otherwise with knowledge and resources that can help them prevent pregnancy.”

Paris, who has authored books on Christian approaches to sexual identity and birth control, also was slated to speak at the Mercer conference.

Sarah Brown, the CEO of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, said the majority of the Q audience probably preferred reducing premarital sex over considering conception. But that may no longer be realistic.

“Isn’t it better for unmarried, sexually active young people to use contraception than to not use it, experience a distressing pregnancy and elect abortion?” Brown said. “It’s a difficult choice. It’s a difficult question, but I think that’s what we have to ask ourselves.”

More than 10 years ago, Sarah Walsh Landini, a Pittsburgh barista, was one of those evangelical 20-somethings who abstained. But at age 23, she didn’t, and within a month she was pregnant.

“The Bible says not to do it, but I think, for most people, they need more than that,” said Landini, now 35, who still sees her 11-year-old son, Jacob, whom she gave up for adoption. “We want to know why. And most of the time folks aren’t prepared to answer the question why.”

David Gushee, director of Mercer’s Center for Theology and Public Life, said the 15-year gap between the average onset of puberty and the average age of marriage is part of what has stopped some of the silence about sex.

“Maybe there is a trend, realizing that that ‘just say no’ and True Love Waits is not enough, that we need a more thorough, more comprehensive and more realistic conversation that goes ahead and deals with the realities that we face in our time,” he said, “while attempting to ask what does the Lord require of us in this area.”

The discussions are reaching people where they are, said Anika Smith, director of Generation Forum, the NAE program aimed especially at reducing abortion among church members.

“I had a lot of people who came up to me when we showed our video and were crying and saying,’That’s me,’” she recalled. “‘That number up there, that was me. I had that abortion,’ or ‘My girlfriend had that abortion and didn’t tell me.’”

She said a sense of shame over premarital sex can lead an unwed woman to choose abortion, and while her organization doesn’t push contraception outright, it is trying to educate pastors about what’s happening between the sheets with the people in their pews.

“We need to create a safe space in our churches for this discussion to happen without shame or condemnation,” said Smith, who has single friends in their 20s who found support for unplanned pregnancies through their churches. She wants to see such churches become “not the exception but the rule.”

Evangelical leaders are grappling with how they can do more than simply decry abortion. Author Jonathan Merritt envisions in his new book, “A Faith of Our Own,” a community of churches working jointly to help birth mothers pay for diapers, doctor visits, schooling and day care. He said he was pleasantly surprised about the results of the nonscientific Q survey.

“If someone chooses to have sex outside of marriage or if they are married but unprepared to have children, I absolutely think they should use contraception,” he said.

Not everyone, however, is ready to advance the conversation to contraception.

Jimmy Hester, co-founder of “True Love Waits,” an abstinence initiative started by the Southern Baptist Convention’s LifeWay Christian Resources, said: “Any discussion of contraception weakens the abstinence message.”

Although Landini admitted at the Q conference that she prayed for a miscarriage, she said that in the end, her unexpected pregnancy brought blessings.

“I’m proud of being a birth mom,” Landini said. “I’m proud of my decision. I’m proud of Jacob. I didn’t like some of the behaviors that got me into that behavior, but God has been good through that.”

Events in honor of the 140^th anniversary of the National Presbyterian Church of Mexico begin May 18and will continue for the next several months.

Exhibitions, lectures and roundtable discussions are planned, dealing with the history, theology and anthropology of the church, covering the time of the arrival of the first U.S. missionaries in Mexico in 1872.

Records show there were families holding worship services in Zacatecas state as early as 1856. The Sinai Temple in Villa de Cos, consecrated in 1870, is the oldest among the evangelical church buildings that exist in Mexico. Missionary Melinda Rankin began her work in the north of the country in 1862.

The commemorations will begin May 18with the theme, “History and Historiography of Presbyterianism,” to be followed July 6-7 with two programs, “Presbyterianism: A People With a Theological Mentality,” and “Presbyterianism: Social Anthropology and History.”

On September 9-10, the Theological Community of Mexico will host a program on “Debating Protestantism: Roundtable Discussions and Final Lecture.” Prominent defenders of Mexican Presbyterianism will participate, including Juan Amador, Melinda Rankin, Arcadio Morales, Elazar Z. Perez, Moises Saenz, Aaron Saenz and Evangelina Coroa.

The anniversary comes a year after the Mexican church voted to end its 139-year partnership in mission with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), after the U.S. church’s decision in 2011 to allow the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians.

That decision is likely to jeopardize significant work along the U.S.-Mexican border — as well as the future of short-term congregational mission trips to Mexico and more than two dozen partnerships that PCUSA presbyteries and synods have established in Mexico.