Letter to the Presbyterian Church

We write this letter out of deep love for our church and our 
commitment to Jesus Christ.

This year, Presbyterians will be asked to consider a significant 
amendment to the *Book of Order*, one which we think will have an 
extremely negative impact on the life of congregations and 
presbyteries.  It would amend G-6.0106 by adding this paragraph: 
"Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life 
of obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic 
confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is 
the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of 
marriage of a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in 
singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged 
practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained 
and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and 
Sacrament."

This overture is an attempt to resolve the on-going debate 
concerning the ordination of practicing homosexual persons. But 
the proposed amendment goes far beyond that issue and will 
confront congregational nominating committees, committees on 
ministry and preparation for ministry, pastor nominating 
committees and individuals with extremely complex theological and 
pastoral problems.

The last sentence, including the words "any self-acknowledged 
practice which the confessions call sin," will prove nearly 
impossible to interpret and, thus, impossible to enforce. Whereas 
some confessions speak of sinful behavior in general categories 
(e.g. "we violate the image of God in others and ourselves" -- 
Brief Statement of Faith), others are quite specific. The 
Heidelberg and Larger and Shorter Catechisms all list various 
behaviors held to be violations of each of the Ten Commandments. 
In the Larger Catechism, sinful behavior includes "undue delay of 
marriage" and "usury" (charging interest on a loan). It also 
condemns work and causing others to work on the Sabbath as well 
as "needless ... thoughts about our worldly employments ...." (C-
7.229).

Obvious and difficult questions arise immediately. In the modern 
world, where so much economic activity is dependent upon interest 
rates, what constitutes "usury," and who decides? What if 
someone's job requires work on Sunday and that person in fact 
does not "repent" of having that job? It would seem that 
prospective elders, deacons and ministers need to repent of all 
sins specified by the various catechisms and confessions. What if 
sessions and presbyteries do not agree about what constitutes 
sinful behavior? What about behavior which we might now consider 
sinful but are not mentioned in any confessional standard? And 
who decides what is full and appropriate repentance?

At the core of this proposed amendment is the affirmation of the 
values of chastity and fidelity. The importance of these values 
in the biblical tradition and Christian faith is unquestioned. 
But what does it mean to turn these values into criteria for 
ordination and/or installation to office? When an ideal is 
reduced to a legal requirement, the spirit of Law has become 
narrow legalism.

The problem is not simply interpreting a text: it is pastoral. 
Most pastors know that many couples who present themselves for 
premarital counseling have been sexually active with each other 
at least once during their courtship. There is a variety of ways 
to address this issue in the context of Christian marriage 
counseling. But does such activity *automatically prevent* a man 
or woman with such a background from ordination and/or 
installation to office?

These are only some of the questions that will have to be asked 
and answered whenever *any* church member is under consideration 
for *any* office in the church. What this language implies is not 
simply the affirmation of a "higher standard of behavior" for 
church officers. It requires the examination of behavior 
potentially bordering on inquisition, if it is to be taken 
seriously at all.

A goal of those who presented this amendment to the General 
Assembly was to call church members and officers to a renewed 
commitment to life and ministry grounded in scripture and the 
theological tradition of the church. We believe an amendment such 
as this does precisely the opposite. It transforms the 
confessions from great teaching documents which provide 
*guidance* (G-14.0207c) into standards which require 
*compliance*. The strength of a confessional tradition is the 
attempt to interpret scripture and its requirements for Christian 
living for the needs of a *particular* day and time. To treat the 
teaching of various catechisms as unchanging accounts of specific 
behavior that is either required or prohibited will not deepen 
our appreciation of our tradition. It will only make it less 
useful and more remote.

Those who have undertaken to write and sign this letter are not 
of one mind about the central issue which has given rise to the 
amendment before the church. As regards the specific matter of 
the ordination of active gay or lesbian persons to office in the 
church, some are opposed, some are in favor, some see this as a 
matter properly determined by sessions and presbyteries, and some 
feel that there is more to be discerned and that any 
constitutional amendment is premature.

We are united, however, in our conviction that this is the wrong 
solution to that matter because it gives rise to more problems 
than it will solve. This is a case where no action is better than 
the wrong action. We urge your presbytery either to vote to take 
no action or to vote against this amendment. We also urge more 
patience with one another as we all seek to be faithful to our 
Lord in the one Body of Christ.

Joanna Adams, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Atlanta, GA; Wallace 
M. Alston, Center for Theological Inquiry, Princeton, NJ; Herbert 
B. Anderson, The Brick Presbyterian Church, New York, NY; Eugene 
Bay, Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church, Bryn Mawr, PA; Dorothy 
Bernard, Former G.A. Moderator, St. Louis, MO; Robert Bohl, 
Former G.A. Moderator, Village Presbyterian Church, Prairie 
Village, KS; Wayne Boulton, Presbyterian School of Christian 
Education, Richmond, VA; Cynthia M. Campbell, McCormick 
Theological Seminary, Chicago, IL; Calvin Chinn, Chinatown 
Presbyterian Church, San Francisco, CA; James Costen, 
Interdenominational Theological Center, Atlanta, GA; Robert 
Dunham, University Presbyterian Church, Chapel Hill, NC; John 
Fife, Former G.A. Moderator, Southside Presbyterian Church, 
Tucson, AZ; William J. Fogleman, Denton, TX; Freda A. Gardner, 
Princeton Seminary, Professor Emerita; Bryant George, New York 
Avenue Presbyterian Church, Washington DC; Sheila Gustafson, 
First Presbyterian Church, Santa Fe, NM; Shirley Guthrie, 
Columbia Seminary, Decatur, GA; Joseph S. Harvard III, First 
Presbyterian Church, Durham, NC; Hugh Halverstadt, McCormick 
Theological Seminary, Chicago, IL; Cynthia A Jarvis, Chestnut 
Hill Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, PA; Deane A. Kemper, 
Lakeside Presbyterian Church, San Francisco, CA; Robert Lamar, 
Former G.A. Moderator, Newtonville, NY; Michael Lindvall, First 
Presbyterian Church, Ann Arbor, Ml; G. Daniel Little, Ithaca, NY; 
Linda C. Loving, First Presbyterian Church, Oakland, CA; James 
Lowry, Idlewild Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN; William P. 
Lytle, Former G.A. Moderator, San Antonio, TX; Clinton Marsh, 
Former G.A. Moderator, Atlanta, GA; Denton McLellan, Germantown 
Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN; John D. McLeod, Western North 
Carolina Presbytery; Blair Monie, Preston Hollow Presb. Church, 
Dallas, TX; Irvin S. Moxley, Fairmount Presb. Church, Cleveland 
Hts., OH; Harriet Nelson, Former G.A. Moderator, Napa, CA; 
Douglas W. Oldenburg, Columbia Seminary, Decatur, GA; Kent M. 
Organ, Fairmount Presb. Church, Cleveland Hts., OH; K. C. Ptomey, 
Westminster Presb. Church, Nashville, TN; Roger Quillin, 
Northridge Presbyterian Church, Dallas, TX; Howard Rice, San 
Francisco Theological Seminary; Bruce Rigdon, Memorial Presb. 
Church, Grosse Pointe, MI; Isabel Rogers, Former G.A. Moderator, 
Presb. School of Christian Educ., Richmond, VA; Jack Rogers, San 
Francisco Theological Seminary; J. Barrie Shepherd, First 
Presbyterian Church, New York, NY; Harry E. Smith, Pres. 
Emeritus, Austin College, Sherman,TX; Benjamin O. Sparks, Second 
Presbyterian Church, Richmond, VA; Gordon C. Stewart, Westminster 
Presb. Church, Minneapolis, MN; Jack Stotts, Austin, TX; George 
Stroup, Columbia Seminary, Decatur, GA; Laird J. Stuart, Calvary 
Presb. Church, San Francisco, CA; Terry Swicegood, Myers Park 
Presbyterian Church, Charlotte, NC; J. Randolph Taylor, Former 
G.A. Moderator, Asheville, NC; William P. Thompson, Former G.A. 
Stated Clerk, La Grange, IL; Herbert Valentine, Former G.A. 
Moderator, Baltimore Presbytery; Jon Walton, Westminster Presb. 
Church, Wilmington, DE; Theodore J. Wardlaw, Central Presbyterian 
Church, Atlanta, GA; Benjamin Weir, Former G.A. Moderator, 
Oakland, CA; Barbara G. Wheeler, Auburn Theological Seminary, New 
York, NY; Albert C. Winn, Former G.A. Moderator, Decatur, GA. 
*Institutional Identification is for Information Only.*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                           A Few Words

Addressed to Elders and Ministers of the Presbyterian Church 
(USA) Who Will Be Voting on the Proposed Constitutional Amendment 
Establishing Certain New Restrictions on Ordination

               From the Undersigned Retired Synod
             and Presbytery Executives of the PCUSA

One of the valuable aspects of our church's polity is that the 
provisions of the constitution can be changed as the Spirit 
moves and the church decides through the years. During our 
service to the church as synod and presbytery executives we have 
witnessed the passage of many amendments which have strengthened 
our ways of being a church community. It is our firm belief 
however that the proposed amendment currently before the 
presbyteries which sets forth certain new restrictions on the 
qualifications for ordination is both troublesome and 
unnecessary.

Supporters of the amendment appear to hope that its passage 
might end the debate over ordination requirements in the church. 
That does not seem likely given the closeness of the General 
Assembly vote sending it to the presbyteries, (313-236). We are 
troubled by the seriously flawed language of the proposal. It 
lacks essential clarity. Its concluding sentence attempts to 
raise up a catalog of sins the consideration of which would 
involve our governing bodies in seemingly endless and wasteful 
administrative and judicial processes. It also attempts to move 
the Confessions into an entirely new authoritative role in the 
church rather than their serving as guidance for church officers 
as the ordination vows provide.

This amendment is quite unnecessary. The *Book of Order* already 
adequately states the qualifications for ordination and whose 
responsibility it is to make ordination decisions.

We encourage you to cast your vote for either a "No" or "No 
Action" response to the proposed amendment.

William M. Aber, Frederick J. Beebe, Margrethe B. J. Brown, 
Donald R. Caughey, James H. Chestnutt, George H. De Hority, 
Jr., Herbert C. Eggleston, John N. Fox, William J. Fogelman, 
Evlyn W. Fulton, Richard K. Giffen, Robert J. Gillespie, Casper 
I. Glenn, Ray Heer, E. Eugene Huff, William R. King, Robert L. 
Lehman, Kenneth R. Locke, David B. Lowry, Robert E. Lucas, John 
C. Matthew, Judy McKay, David C. Meekhof, George P. Morgan, 
James W. Muir, James A. Payne, H. Richard Siciliano. Carl R. 
Simon, Robert E. Seel, Carl R. Smith, Arthur M. Stevenson and 
Edward W. White.  October 1996.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
        14 Reasons Why Amendment B Should Not Be Affirmed

                        by Robert Lehman

["Amendment B" is the official designation for the "chastity" 
amendment. -- JDA]

1. The proposed amendment would deprive congregations and 
presbyteries from electing certain members whom they discern to 
have received from God the necessary gifts to serve as officers 
in the church. Within the limits specified in the *Book of Order*, 
it is the inalienable right and responsibility of congregations 
to elect elders and deacons, and of presbyteries to elect 
ministers of the Word and Sacrament. If God has given an 
individual the necessary gifts, the electing body should be free 
to recognize this reality and to act accordingly.

2. The *Book of Order* assigns to the appropriate governing body 
(the session for elders and deacons; the presbytery for ministers 
of the Word and Sacrament) [Book of Order, chp 6] the 
responsibility of determining whether or not a particular member 
has the necessary gifts to serve effectively in a particular 
office of the church. It is our firm conviction that God's Spirit 
grants these gifts to certain individuals, and it is the 
responsibility of sessions and presbyteries to discern them. The 
proposed amendment, if adopted, would prevent these governing 
bodies, in certain instances, from moving to ordination and 
installation, even when the member quite obviously has been 
blessed by God with the necessary gifts.

3. It is our conviction that, while human error is always 
possible, the Spirit of God actively guides sessions and 
presbyteries as they seek to discern the Spirit-given gifts in 
candidates for ordination. And it must be remembered that it is 
the local governing body that knows each candidate and that can 
best discern the necessary gifts.

4. Certain fundamentals of faith and commitment are required of 
all candidates for ordination and installation. These are 
enumerated in the ordination questions to which each candidate 
must respond in the affirmative [See Form of Government, G-
14.0207]. When a candidate responds affirmatively to each of 
these questions, the church may anticipate in faith that this 
candidate is prepared to serve effectively.

5. The overture in question, for the first time ever, proposes to 
establish parts of the *Book of Confessions* as absolute standards 
by which individuals would be accepted or rejected for ordination 
and installation. Until now, one has affirmed "that the essential 
tenets of the Reformed faith" are expressed in the confessions of 
our church [*The Book of Confessions*] and one has promised to be 
"instructed and led by those confessions as [one] leads the 
people of God."

6. The proposed overture would specify that "any ... practice which 
the confessions call sin" would exclude an individual from 
ordination and/or installation. As many as 250 practices are 
identified as "sin" in the *Book of Confessions*. A few examples 
are as follows:

BOC 7.227 Westminster Larger Catechism -- Question and answer #117 
on keeping the Sabbath. This could prohibit installing a deacon 
or elder who engaged in any kind of labor or played tennis or 
golf or went fishing on Sunday.

BOC 7.228 Westminster Larger Catechism -- Question and answer #118 
condemns all who employ others to work on Sundays.

BOC 4.110 The Heidelberg Catechism -- Question and answer #110 
forbid deceptive advertising and merchandising, exorbitant 
interest, all greed and the misuse and waste of God's gifts.

BOC 7.249 The Westminster Larger Catechism -- Question and answer 
#139. Among the "sins" that would require confession are all 
unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections, 
immodest apparel, undue delay of marriage, idleness, gluttony and 
drunkenness.

BOC 5.191 The Second Helvetic Confession. It is forbidden that 
women should perform baptisms or other ecclesiastical functions.

7. There were 236 commissioners at the 208th General Assembly who 
voted that this was a bad overture and that it should be 
defeated. While 313 commissioners voted for the overture, there 
was by no means a consensus (57% to 43%) that it should be 
affirmed.

8. If this overture were approved, it would be incumbent upon 
every session and every presbytery to examine each candidate for 
ordination and/or installation as to whether he/she had ever 
committed any of the "sins" identified in the *Book of Confessions* 
and if so, whether or not he/she had confessed these "sins." If 
this careful examination of each candidate were not done, the 
governing body would be guilty of selectively deciding to apply 
this proposed rule to certain individuals only.

9. This proposed amendment would open the church to the 
possibility of self-righteous hypocrisy, as those "without sin" 
would sit in judgment upon those who confess that they have 
"sinned."

10. This proposed amendment would establish a two-tiered morality 
in our church. One could become a member in good standing without 
acknowledging and confessing these "sins," but officers would be 
required to measure up to this different standard.

11. While Jesus referred to certain behavior as contrary to God's 
purposes (e.g. divorce), he never identified homosexual 
relationships as wrong. His emphasis was always upon receiving 
the good news of the gospel and upon responding in faithfulness 
and love to the Reign of God.

12. Our ultimate obedience must always be to our risen Lord Jesus 
Christ, as his Spirit enables us to discern his will in the light 
of the Scriptures.

13. The Bible, properly understood in its historical context, 
cannot be used to argue that long-term, committed relationships 
between people of the same sex are contrary to God's will. Thirty 
professors of Bible in Presbyterian seminaries have signed a 
letter which states: "It is the gospel of Jesus that invites gay 
and lesbian brothers and sister to full communion in the church; 
and it is the justice of Jesus that calls and equips Christians 
for ministry; and it is the justice of Jesus that calls us to 
insure that those who are invited, called and equipped are free 
to fulfill their ministries among us with the full recognition 
and support of the church."

14. The passage of this overture would bring much confusion and 
pain into the life of our churches and presbyteries. It will be 
far better to defeat the overture, and leave the decision, in 
each case, to the session or presbytery who knows the candidate 
and who will prayerfully seek the leading of God's Spirit.

NOTE: There has been no attempt to prioritize these reasons. Some 
are, without doubt, more essential than others. But each stands 
in its own right. I am not particularly interested in trying to 
defend them, but I would be willing to respond if a someone has 
difficulty in understanding what I have tried to state very 
briefly. I would be interested to learn if someone believes I 
have failed to mention an important reason for defeating the 
proposed overture. -- Robert Lehman, Marcellus, NY, October 1996; 
PresbyNet: ROBERT LEHMAN; internet: robert_lehman.parti@ecunet.org

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *