A Study Paper approved for distribution by the Presbytery of Santa Fe, PC (U.S.A.)
November 1996
Note: If you can't link to the section you want to read, you may have to try reloading the link. I don't know why, I guess the document's just too big.
The Purpose of the "Fidelity and Chastity" Amendment
The Relevance of Our Traditions
Our Traditional Understanding of the Radical Nature of Sin
Our Traditions Regarding Qualifications for Ordained Office
Subscription and Ordination in Our Tradition
Our Traditional Approach to Church Discipline
What Will Life Be like in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) If this Amendment Passes?
Scenarios of Life in the Church
Appendix:
Contributors to this Report
Bibliography
Report of The 208th General Assembly Committee on Ordination and Human
Sexuality, Preamble
A Partial List of "What the Confessions Call Sin"
In all the hotly debated issues in the church this year, one in particular
stands out with far-reaching implications for the life of the church. The
208th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of
America (1996), meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, voted to
This proposed amendment to our denomination's Book of Order was drafted
by the General Assembly Committee on Ordination and Human Sexuality. It
was this committee's job to recommend a response to the many proposals from
many different presbyteries to "do something" about the controversy over
homosexual ordination. The committee presented this amendment to the General
Assembly in their report, together with a Preamble which described the
committee's reasons for recommending the amendment. After making a few slight
modifications, the General Assembly approved the committee's recommendation by
a vote of 313 in favor and 236 against (57% to 43%).
Presbyteries, churches, commissioners, stated clerks and pastors will receive
a lot of mail about this proposed amendment this winter. Some of this
literature will come from the national offices in Louisville -- mostly neutral
material, describing the amendment, and summarizing arguments for and against
it. Other material however, will come from private groups. Some of these
groups are well-funded and -organized -- and highly partisan on the issue.
Meeting in regular session in Belen, New Mexico on July 13th, 1996, the
Presbytery of Santa Fe made the following directive:
This report is an attempt to fulfill that directive by presenting a
perspective on the amendment which is neither carefully neutral (as the
material from Louisville must be), nor originating from partisan "lobby
groups," as most of the other material you receive will be. The question of
whether homosexual behavior is a sin will not be discussed in this packet --
that has been left to the many volumes already written on that topic.[1] This document is conservative
(i.e., traditionally grounded) in approach; our purpose is not to be
"politically correct," but "traditionally correct" (or, as Presbyterians we
might call it "decent and in order"). This document is an official paper
commissioned and approved by a legitimately constituted body of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): the Presbytery of Santa Fe, host presbytery of
the 208th General Assembly (1996) in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The Committee on Ordination and Human Sexuality, in section II of their
report, stated the purpose of the amendment:
We hear the church's desire to send a clear word that speaks to the moral
confusion in our culture....[2]
The proposed amendment is intended to serve two purposes:
* First, it will make it difficult if not impossible for persons who are
openly homosexual to be ordained and/or installed as officers in the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).[3]
* Second, by writing this policy into the constitution of the church,
this proposed amendment will make it extremely difficult for the church ever to
change its mind on the question, since such a change would require a
constitutional amendment.
This second purpose is the only really new thing which this amendment
would add to what our church already does about gay ordination. As it stands
now, "definitive guidance" and "authoritative interpretation," two policies
implemented by past general assemblies, prohibit the ordination of
"Self-affirmed, Practicing Homosexuals." There are already disciplinary trials
underway to enforce these policies. These trials will likely result in
preventing or nullifying ordinations of openly homosexual persons in the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). However, though "authoritative interpretation"
and "definitive guidance" are legally binding, they can be repealed more easily
than a constitutional amendment can. If you want to prevent gay ordination,
this would be the main reason for you to support the "fidelity and chastity"
amendment--it makes a rule that is hard to change.
Obviously, if you want to allow the possibility that homosexuals could be
ordained, you would oppose this amendment.
On the other hand, if you oppose ordination of homosexuals in all
circumstances, certain additional questions probably ought to be answered for
you before you decide to support the proposed amendment.
* What other effects will this amendment have on historic principles and
standards of the church? How will it affect the church, aside from the
question of homosexual ordination?[4]
* Is this amendment the "right way"[5] to prevent gay ordination in the
church?
Many who oppose gay ordination hope that this amendment will finally "put to
rest" the whole issue so that the church can "move forward....into a new day of
'mission, mission, mission.'"[6] Is this a
realistic aim? Our tradition has required of persons who disagree with church
decisions that they choose among four options:
1. Attempt to change their own opinions to come into agreement with the church
on the issue.
2. Quietly submit to the new rule.
3. Attempt lawfully to change the rule while complying with it.
4. Peaceably withdraw from the church, renouncing the obligations and
privileges of church membership, without causing dissension in the process.
* Given that the efforts to change the rule will still be allowable, how
likely is it that the church will put this issue completely to rest by passing
this amendment?
The first and highest demand that our tradition makes on us is that we
must put Christ first, who is the head of the church.[8] If any tradition stands in the way of that,
it is the tradition which must be set aside, not Jesus Christ. This is why we
say our tradition is "reformed, always being reformed." Yet our tradition
cannot be set aside casually. Precisely because we are sinful and prone to
self-deceit, the tradition is of value to us to keep us in a disciplined
community, faithful to Jesus Christ above all. Tradition serves powerfully to
insure against our being "blown about by every wind of doctrine."[9]
The Report of the Committee on Ordination and Human Sexuality made a point of
preserving and respecting our traditions:
This kind of respect for our heritage is classic, honest Presbyterian
conservatism. This same respect for our tradition and identity would demand
that we examine the "Fidelity and Chastity Amendment" to see if it's consistent
with historic Presbyterian standards. It calls for a close and careful reading
of the proposed amendment, in the light of our traditions.
The text of the amendment contains the phrase, "...in conformity to the
historic confessional standards of the church."
Our Book of Order does not require "conformity" to the standards
of the Book of Confessions (G-14.0207c,d; G-14-0405c,d). The wording of
the ordination vows requires only that ordinands "sincerely receive and adopt"
the confessional standards, and "are led" by them. The less restrictive tone
of this language is rooted in centuries of Reformed tradition:
Introduction
...send to the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative vote, the
following amendment to the Book of Order, G-6.0106, to renumber the present
paragraph as "a" and by adding a new section "b" to read as follows:
"b. Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in
obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional
standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to life
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." [As amended]
"To direct the [presbytery] Council Committee on Congregational Christian
Witness to produce a packet of educational material regarding the recent
decision of the General Assembly to amend the Book of Order requiring
fidelity in marriage and/or chastity in singleness for all church officers,
...that it [the packet] be brought to presbytery for approval in November, with
the aim to distribute it to the churches."
The Purpose of the "Fidelity and Chastity" Amendment
....We have concluded that now is the time to allow the church at the grass
roots through its presbyteries to study and decide whether it is God's will to
ordain self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons to the office of deacon,
elder, or minister of the Word and Sacrament in the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.). While it may be important for presbyteries and future General
Assemblies to discuss matters of polity and interpretation, we are recommending
that presbyteries should be asked at this time to discuss and vote on the issue
of ordination and sexuality.
The Relevance of Our Traditions[7]
The Committee believes that this language best expresses our understanding of
Scripture as guided by the confessions and the historic practice of this
church....
....Ordination is for the whole church. Any form of "local option" would
abandon our historic and distinctive foundation as a confessional and
connectional church. We must hold both of these together in order to maintain
the peace, unity, and purity of the church.[10]
Our Confessional Tradition
* We are a "confessional" church. Is the amendment consistent with the
traditional understanding of what that means?
Confessions have PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY (and are therefore subject to
revision and correction) because all confessions are the work of limited,
fallible, sinful human beings and churches....."All synods or councils since
the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have
erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to
be used as a help in both" (C-6.1753)
Confessions have a TEMPORARY AUTHORITY... because faith in the living
God present and at work in the risen Christ through the Holy Spirit means
always to be open to hear a new and fresh word from the Lord....(C-8.11)
Confessions have a RELATIVE AUTHORITY... because they are subordinate
to the higher authority of Scripture, which is the norm for discerning the work
and will of God in every time and place. (C-6.010, 9.03)[11]
This principle is expressed clearly and simply in the Book of Order:
These confessional statements are subordinate standards in the church,
subject to the authority of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, as the Scriptures
bear witness to him. While confessional standards are subordinate to the
Scriptures, they are, nonetheless, standards. They are not lightly drawn up or
subscribed to, nor may they be ignored or dismissed. The church is prepared to
counsel with or even to discipline one ordained who seriously rejects the faith
expressed in the confessions.[12]
* Is the proposed amendment's requirement of "conformity" to the confessional standards of the church an affirmation of, or a departure from Presbyterian tradition?
* Is sin best defined as behavior?
* Can Christians whose behavior is more upright and acceptable in the church be considered to be less sinful than other Christians?
One of the characteristic marks of the Reformed tradition is its radical[13] understanding of sin. We have always understood that sin cannot be reduced to a list of behaviors which we can avoid in order to become righteous before God:
We confess and acknowledge that the law of God is most just, equal,
holy, and perfect, commanding those things which, when perfectly done, can give
life and bring man to eternal felicity; but our nature is so corrupt, weak, and
imperfect, that we are never able perfectly to fulfill the works of the law.
Even after we are reborn, if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves
and the truth of God is not in us.
....we affirm that no man on earth, with the sole exception of Christ Jesus,
has given, gives, or shall give in action that obedience to the Law which the
Law requires. When we have done all things we must fall down and unfeignedly
confess that we are unprofitable servants. Therefore, whoever boasts of the
merits of his own works or puts his trust in works...boasts of what does not
exist, and puts his trust in damnable idolatry.[14]
Q. 3. Where do you learn of your sin and its wretched consequences?
A. From the Law of God.
Q. 5. Can you keep all this perfectly?
A. No, for by nature I am prone to hate God and my neighbor.
Q. 7. Where, then, does this corruption of human nature come from?
A. From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in the
Garden of Eden; whereby our human life is so poisoned that we are all conceived
and born in the state of sin.
Q. 8. But are we so perverted that we are altogether unable to do good and
prone to do evil?
A. Yes, unless we are born again through the Spirit of God.
Q. 13. Can we make this payment ourselves?
A. By no means. On the contrary, we increase our debt each day.[15]
Of course, this does not mean that God doesn't demand goodness from us. Presbyterians believe that God calls us to strive for righteousness. But the motivation for the righteous behavior does not come from a desire to earn our salvation. If we follow all the rules because we believe this makes us better than others, we have sinned just as fully as if we had broken the rules. We believe that our motivation to be good stems from a desire to please God who first loved us and redeemed us. (1 John 4:19) We have called this striving for righteousness "our sanctification." The confessions say that any other motivation for being good is "damnable idolatry."[16]
"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax
collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, 'God, I thank
you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like
this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.'
But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but
was beating his breast and saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell
you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all
who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be
exalted."[17]
* Under the proposed amendment, would a Presbyterian with the Pharisee's attitude be likely barred from ordination?
* What does this suggest about the "higher standard" which the proposed amendment is supposed to set for church office? Is it consistent with the standard set by Jesus in this parable?
"You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not
murder'; and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you
that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to
judgment...."[18]
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say
to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed
adultery with her in his heart."[19]
According to Jesus, then, sinful motivations are as sinful as sinful behaviors.
* What sinful motivations to righteous behavior would the proposed amendment foster in the church?
* What sinful behaviors might also be fostered under the proposed amendment?
WE ARE NOT SAVED BY GOOD WORKS. Nevertheless, as was said above, we
do not think that we are saved by good works, and that they are so necessary
for salvation that no one was ever saved without them. For we are saved by
grace and the favor of Christ alone. Works necessarily proceed from faith.
And salvation is improperly attributed to them, but is most properly ascribed
to grace.[20]
...in the works even of the saints there is much that is unworthy of God and
very much that is imperfect....the Lord says in the Gospel: "When you have done
all that is commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done
what was our duty'" (Luke 17:10). ....Paul says: "What have you that you did
not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you had not
received it?" (I Cor. 4:7).[21]
* Is it reasonable according to our tradition to expect that persons ordained to church office must be righteous in God's eyes (apart from the righteousness they receive by grace)?
* If we perceive someone to be righteous in our own human judgment, but we know that in God's eyes they are sinners except for the grace of Christ -- whose judgment should we accept, ours or God's?
There is a great number of behaviors, thoughts, attitudes, etc., which are called "sin" in the Book of Confessions. Many of them are not considered "sin" at all today.[22] This flexibility to interpret our confessions is a venerable aspect of our Reformed heritage.
* Would the proposed amendment require us to abandon this tradition?
* Would the proposed amendment have the effect of imposing on the church rules and prohibitions which we have long since decided to disregard?
* Under the proposed amendment, what is to prevent the church from prohibiting pictures of Jesus in Sunday school books,[23] for example, or going to movies on Sundays,[24] or playing the lottery,[25] or honoring the national flag in church,[26] or divorce and remarriage?[27]
* Is it appropriate to rely on cultural standards to prevent extreme interpretations of the proposed amendment? Why or why not?
Perhaps the proposed amendment only applies to sins that we take seriously for our day and age. But there are many people today who do take divorce and remarriage seriously, as well as pictures of Jesus in church or honoring the flag in church, or leisure entertainments on Sundays, or playing the lottery. By the same token, there are many people today who do not consider homosexual behavior to be all that serious (which is, of course, why the proposed amendment was drafted in the first place).
* Who decides which of the behaviors "which the confessions call sin" are serious enough to preclude the ordination of the sinner to church office?
* Does the proposed amendment imply that among all the sins named in the confessions, only sexual sins are serious?
* What would this aspect of the proposed amendment suggest about the nature of the confessions' authority as standards for the church?
* Would this be an affirmation of or a departure from our tradition regarding the deep-rootedness of sin in our lives?
* We believe that anyone who holds office in the church is as much a sinner in God's eyes as anyone else; what criteria should we set as qualifications for ordained office in the church?
The text of the proposed amendment includes these key words: "Those called to office in the church are to lead a life...." And the Preamble to the Report of the Ordination and Human Sexuality Committee argues the case that moral standards for ordained persons are necessarily higher than for "ordinary" Christians:
Ordination....requires prayerful discernment...of those whose "manner of
life" is a "demonstration of the Christian gospel" (G-6.0106)....Where sin
remains unacknowledged and unrepentant, THERE CAN BE NO ORDINATION. The
standards are high.[28]
Note that the Committee's report refers to the Book of Order as the basis for the authority for this statement. Compare this claim with the actual text of the Book of Order (G-6.0106):
those who undertake particular ministries SHOULD be persons of strong
faith, dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
Their manner of life SHOULD be a demonstration of the Christian gospel
in the church and in the world....[29]
The important word "should" has been deliberately chosen here to allow for freedom for the community (guided by Scripture, the Holy Spirit, experience, and the traditions of the church) to interpret who is and who is not called to ordained office in the church. The words of the committee report "there can be no ordination" impose a requirement in the constitution where in our tradition as it now stands, such has been carefully avoided.
Difficult as it is to find the way between church authority without personal
freedom or personal freedom without church authority, a distinctive mark of the
Reformed tradition is the belief that it is only by seeking this difficult way
that the church can be a united community of Christians who are both "reformed
and always being reformed."[30]
The wording of this amendment increases the strictness of the ordination standards in the Book of Order. Traditionally, the standards have been less stringent so that local congregations and presbyteries would be freer to adapt them to particular situations.
* Does the proposed amendment improve or threaten the traditional careful balance between personal freedom and church authority?
In the text of the proposed amendment, we find the phrase, "Persons refusing to repent...shall not be ordained and/or installed...."[31] and a key sentence in the Preamble to the Committee Report is "The standards are high."[32]
* In the light of the traditions about authoritative standards as outlined above, what might be inferred about this statement in relation to the traditional freedom to interpret "standards" in particular situations?
* Would our tradition permit or prohibit the possibility that a "high standard" may be understood differently in different situations?
* What does the amendment imply (and the preamble of the committee report state openly) about whether the standards of Christian life should differ for ordained Christians and "ordinary" ones?
The issue before this church is not a question of membership, but of
office. Active membership is inclusive of all who have faith in Jesus Christ
as Savior and Lord....However, the refusal to repent of any self-acknowledged
practice that Scripture, interpreted through the confessions, calls sin, bars
one from office.[33]
Compare this statement, which underlies the proposed amendment, with what the tradition has said about office in the church: "....These ordained officers differ from other members in function only."[34]
John Calvin, perhaps the most important of our ancestors from the Reformation period, notes this about the qualifications of ministers:
....though one comes to it with an evil conscience, he is nonetheless duly
called in the presence of the church, provided his wickedness is not open.
In two passages [Titus 1:7, 1 Tim. 3:1-7] Paul fully sets forth what sort of
bishops ought to be chosen. To sum up, only those are to be chosen who are of
sound doctrine and of holy life, not notorious in any fault which might both
deprive them of authority and disgrace the ministry. The very same
requirements apply to deacons and presbyters.[35]
Calvin assumes that nobody can come to the ministry without "an evil conscience," if they are honest with themselves.
* What is the basis of Calvin's concern for "holiness" among church officers here?
* Is it that they should be more pleasing in God's sight than "ordinary" Christians?
* Would this advantage be the same in all settings and circumstances?
Our tradition has upheld the notion that church officers should be examples of holy Christian living. Yet the standards for this lifestyle have changed. At different times the church has asserted different doctrines about such things as ordaining women, entertainments on Sunday, and pictures of Jesus in church.
* What does this suggest about the meaning of "tradition?"
* Which aspects of tradition are more central and which are less so?
* Which are fluid and which are more enduring?
Church officers--ministers, elders, and deacons--are not expected to
be perfect, for that is a characteristic appropriate to God alone. Nor is
there some list of rules and regulations whose observance guarantees that
officers' lives will manifestly demonstrate the truth of the gospel. The
gospel includes Jesus' "table-sharing" with the rich as well as the poor, the
story of the prodigal son as well as the beatitudes, the assurances of Paul as
well as the challenges of James, Peter's denial as well as his confession of
faith. This character trait is most often found, not in those who build a
fortress of personal holiness to protect themselves from others, but in those
who continually order their lives in openness to God's grace in Jesus Christ.
It is found in those who purposefully have "[their] face[s] ... set toward
Jerusalem" (Luke 9:53), following their crucified and risen Lord wherever he
may lead them.[36]
The question Presbyterians have traditionally asked is not "is this person worthy to be ordained?" but "does this person have the gifts to function effectively in this office?"
It seems only natural to defend the purity of the church by requiring aspiring church officers to conform to certain clear standards. Presbyterians have at various times in our history required that anyone seeking ordination must affirm certain "essential and necessary articles" of Reformed faith.
One of the last times this happened was in 1923. This was when the "Five Fundamentals"[37] of Christian faith were last reaffirmed. They had been first instituted at the General Assembly in 1910, then reaffirmed in 1916 and again in 1923. But in 1925, the first significant judicial decision barring an ordination on the basis of the "essential and necessary articles" created such pain in the church that the General Assembly appointed a commission to examine the issue of "subscription." The commission, which reported in 1926 and again in 1927, concluded that subscription does little to foster the purity of the church, but did considerable damage to its peace and unity.
The commission found that an examination of our history was "revealing"; their report of 1927 states:
A brief review of the discussions which have troubled our Church in the past
throws a revealing light upon the path which we are now treading. Controversy
within the Presbyterian Church is not a new thing. We have passed this way
before.[38]
In the early 1700's, the phrase "essential and necessary articles" of faith was first used. Its intent was to include ministers who differed on some of the details of the Westminster Confession of Faith. They agreed to disagree on some of the details, as long as the "essentials" were the same between them. They did, however, leave the definition of what was essential largely up to the conscience of the individual. This decision was ratified in the "Adopting Act" of 1729. In subsequent years, however, the phrase "essential and necessary articles" was to serve the purpose of exclusion, rather than inclusion.
The Cumberland Presbyterian Church was formed in 1810 by ministers who would not assent to all the details of the Westminster Confession, so they split off and formed their own church. One hundred years later, in 1910, subscription to the "essential articles" in the form of the five fundamentals of the faith, was back in the church. It, too caused a schism in the church: the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, led by Princeton professor J. Gresham Machen, was formed after the PCUS voted to rescind the "five fundamentals" as requirements for ordination.
The commission which studied the issue in 1925 observed, however:
....The experience of the past teaches us many valuable lessons....Two
controlling facts emerge. One is, that the Presbyterian system admits of
diversity of view where the core of truth is identical. Another is, that the
Church has flourished best and showed most clearly the good hand of God upon
it, when it laid aside its tendencies to stress these differences, and put the
emphasis on its unity of spirit.[39]
The consequences of subscription have proven so painful in the past that the church has either had to rescind it, as in 1927, or to suffer schism, as in 1810. This was recognized by the 208th General Assembly in 1996 in Albuquerque, when by an overwhelming majority, it turned back a move to reintroduce the "Five Fundamentals."[40]
* The proposed "Fidelity and Chastity" amendment is not a requirement that people subscribe to a certain standard of belief, but rather to a certain standard of behavior. Does this make it fundamentally different from the earlier efforts to purify the church through subscription?
* One of the intentions of the phrase "self-acknowledged behavior" is to single out those who firmly believe that their behavior is not immoral. With this phrasing in the proposed amendment, is there a real difference between requiring a certain behavior and requiring a certain belief?
From the history of these painful conflicts in the church, a principle has emerged in our tradition to maintain the peace and unity of the church:
....we also believe that there are truths and forms with respect to which men
of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these we think it the
duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance
toward each other.[41]
The proposed amendment includes the phrase, "shall not be ordained and/or installed" "Shall not" is the strongest language the Book of Order allows. But especially in matters of discipline, care is taken in the Book of Order to allow for particular circumstances and interpretations in individual cases.
In a disciplinary case the degrees of church censure are rebuke, temporary
exclusion from exercise of ordained office or membership, and removal from
ordained office or membership.[42]
"Shall Not" means that an ordination found to be inconsistent with this amendment will be nullified -- a particularly rigorous sanction. Yet, phrases in the proposed amendment, such as "self-acknowledged," "which the confessions call 'sin'," and "refusing to repent" admit a great deal of uncertainty into the process of judging when and to whom to apply this sanction. The extremity of the sanction makes the interpretation of the offense more difficult.
* How might this amendment affect the Presbyterian tradition of care and moderation in judicial matters?
* What will it be like to adjudicate individuals' "unrepentant, self-acknowledged...sin" for the purposes of deciding whether to nullify their ordination?
* Will people who lie about their behavior be less likely or more likely to be prosecuted under this amendment?
If this Amendment Passes?
The words "self-acknowledged" in this amendment were intended originally to prevent the amendment from becoming a basis for "witch hunts and heresy hunts." The Committee wanted to avoid the possibility of one Presbyterian "staking out" the house of another at night to uncover any sexual sins that could be used against them. With the addition of these two words, this danger seems to have been avoided.
* Does "self-acknowledged" mean that they admit it openly if asked, or does it mean only that they assert, without any prompting, that they behave in this prohibited way?
* Is the behavior "self-acknowledged" if the person only admits it to a few close friends?
* Or does it mean that the person merely acknowledges privately in her/his own mind that he/she is doing this thing?
* If the person is asked, but lies about the behavior, does the lie itself then become grounds for negating an ordination or installation?
* What will be the effect on the health of the church community if people feel they must hide their behavior from one another?
Following are hypothetical cases taken from actual experiences in the church. Imagining the impact of the "Fidelity and Chastity" amendment on these situations, what is suggested about life in the church under the proposed amendment?
1. A candidate for ministry is ordained and installed, but then subsequently becomes involved openly in a homosexual relationship. He feels this is not something for which the Lord requires any repentance. The Committee on Ministry and the Committee on Preparation for Ministry must decide whether to try to prevent or avoid this in the future.
* What kinds of questions or investigations should they establish?
* How would it feel to be a member of such a committee asking such questions?
* How much time and effort will be required to investigate candidates for church office?
* How might the Session handle this in the case of an elder or deacon who similarly surprised them?
2. The Uptown United Church is a conservative evangelical congregation, warm and friendly with many close and supportive relationships. One of the deacons at the church is a much-beloved and dedicated servant, but lives with her "friend." It's an "open secret" in the church that they are in fact in a lesbian relationship, but nobody talks about it. Nearby, the more liberal activist "Suburban Immanuel" church ordains a person to their Session who is openly gay and an activist for gay rights both inside and outside the church. When the Uptown Church Session gets wind of it, they bring charges against the Session of Suburban Immanuel for violating the "fidelity and chastity" clause of the Book of Order. But somebody at Immanuel accuses the Uptown Church of hypocrisy because they have a lesbian deacon. Now the Uptown Church must decide whether to lift her ordination, creating tremendous pain in the congregation, or face charges themselves. The presbytery faces a very painful conflict situation as a result.
3. The editor of a city newspaper is an ordained Presbyterian elder. He has made many enemies by his strongly critical statements about various leaders in the community and the church. His installation to the Session of First Presbyterian Church is challenged on the grounds that his newspaper "bears false witness" against people in the community. Since "bearing false witness" is so broadly stated in the confessions, several of the editor's writings are interpretable as violations of the ninth commandment.[43] As people line up on either side of the case, the Permanent Judicial Commission must decide whether this case should be dismissed as trivial, or brought to trial.
4. A nominating committee has narrowed the field to two men who might fill the vacancy in the Board of Deacons. One of them is living with a woman to whom he is not married, and the other is married and faithful to his wife. But the first man is widely known for his warmth, humility, and ardent desire to serve others, while the second man is self-centered and slothful.
* How would this amendment affect the nominating committee's decision?
* How would you feel, as a member of this nominating committee, to find that this amendment makes requirements about the course you must take?
* What aspects of our tradition regarding ordination would be most pertinent in this situation?
5. A congregation has re-elected two members of the Session for a second term. One of them is a young man who is living with his fiancee. She refuses to marry him for at least another year of "trial" cohabitation. He sees nothing wrong with this arrangement. The other is a corporate lawyer whose latest case is a fight to prevent the government from removing his company's product from the market. The product is an agricultural chemical which, according to a scientific study, has caused birth defects in migrant workers' children. He believes he is being responsible and faithful in this work.
* Under the proposed amendment, which of the two would more likely be barred from the Session?
* What would this suggest about the nature of the "higher standard" which the proposed amendment is intended to establish?
In our tradition, when the church has felt that confusion and crisis were great enough, and a "clear word" was felt to be needed, that word has been proclaimed in the Book of Confessions. The "Fidelity and Chastity" amendment is presented to us as an opportunity for the church at the grass roots "to speak a clear word to the moral confusion of our time" -- in particular, about the morality of homosexual behavior.
* How "clear" a "word" would the proposed amendment proclaim?
* How many times does any word meaning "homosexual" appear in the amendment?
* Are there any phrases in the proposed amendment that are likely to be unclear as they are applied in disciplinary cases?
* If the church were to set aside this amendment, what more traditional route could the church take that would lead to a "clear word" on the question of homosexual ordination?
The Fidelity and Chastity Amendment is intended to be a means for the church to remain faithful to its tradition by refusing to "go along" with the social trend of tolerance for homosexuals (many sincere Presbyterians would question whether our society really is becoming more tolerant of homosexuality). Yet in the effort to "hold firm to our convictions" by passing this amendment, we may be violating several of the fundamental articles of our faith and tradition.
* Is "holding firm" in this way worth the price we'll pay in compromise to Presbyterian traditions in general?
* Is the confusion this amendment may cause a reasonable price to pay for a "clear word" that may in fact not be so clear?
Editor:
Rev. Britton Johnston, Pastor, Westminster Presbyterian Church, Santa Fe,
NM.
Contributors:
Rev. Carl Boaz, Christian Educator, First Presbyterian Church, Santa Fe,
NM.
Advisory Council on Discipleship and Worship. 1986. The Confessional Nature
of the Church. Commended to the Church for Study by the 198th General
Assembly (1986) Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Louisville.
Book of Confessions
Book of Order
Brawley, Robert L. 1996. Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to
Scripture. Westminster/John Knox Press. Louisville.
Choon-Leong Seow. 1996. Homosexuality and Christian Community.
Westminster/John Knox Press. Louisville.
General Assembly Minutes 1926, 1927, 1996.
Indian Hills Episcopal-Presbyterian Church. 1994. Dialogue Within
Disagreement: Christians Face Homosexuality. Four-Part Study Series.
Cincinnati.
Rogers, Jack and Deborah Flemister Mullen, eds. 1990. Ordination Past,
Present, Future. Theology and Worship Ministry Unit. Louisville.
Rogers, Jack. Presbyterian Creeds.
Siker, Jeffrey S., ed. 1994. Homosexuality in the Church - Both Sides of
the Debate. Westminster/John Knox. Louisville.
Spahr, Jane Adams, Kathryn Poethig, Selisse Berry and Melinda V. McLain, eds.
1995. Called Out: The Voices & Gifts of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgendered Presbyterians. Chi Rho Press. Gaithersberg, Maryland.
The Theology and Worship Ministry Unit. 1992. A Proposal for Considering
the Theology and Practice of Ordination in the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.). Louisville.
Thorson-Smith, Sylvia. 1993. Reconciling The Broken Silence - The Church in
Dialogue on Gay and Lesbian Issues. Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.
Louisville.
Wink, Walter. 1979. "Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality," in Christian
Century. November 7, 1979.
We, the Assembly Committee on Ordination and Human Sexuality, are thankful for
the opportunity to hear from the whole church in all its diversity, as we work
to maintain a spirit of compassion and unity on difficult issues that have
occasioned much discussion and pain in the church. The committee had before it
numerous overtures and addresses, and listened long and hard to the voices
speaking on so many different aspects of ordination and human sexuality. In
listening, the committee also heard many related questions involving polity,
the confessions, and the constitutional status of authoritative interpretation
in the church.
We struggled with a way to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace. We have concluded that now is the time to allow the church at the grass
roots through its presbyteries to study and decide whether it is God's will to
ordain self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons to the office of deacon,
elder, or minister of the Word and Sacrament in the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.). While it may be important for presbyteries and future General
Assemblies to discuss matters of polity and interpretation, we are recommending
that presbyteries should be asked at this time to discuss and vote on the issue
of ordination and sexuality.
We hear the church's desire to send a clear word that speaks to the moral
confusion in our culture. In order to speak well, the committee is
recommending, first, that the assembly pray. Second, that we send to the
presbyteries for their affirmative or negative vote, the following amendment to
the Book of Order, G-6.0106, to renumber the present paragraph as "a" and by
adding a new section "b" to read as follows:
b. Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life
in 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."
The committee believes that this language best expresses our understanding of
Scripture as guided by the confessions and the historic practice of this
church, in unity with the Church universal and ecumenical. We believe we have
spoken to the concerns of almost all of the overtures in making this
recommendation.
In sending this resolution, we as a church are acting like Jesus, who loves
all persons, who did not come to condemn anyone, but calls all to repentance,
turning from sin. The church must not be an exclusive, condemning community;
it must be a community of welcome and love.
The issue before this church is not a question of membership, but of office.
Active membership is inclusive of all who have faith in Jesus Christ as Savior
and Lord.
Through listening to the pain of its members, the church has learned to
distinguish between homosexual orientation and practice. Homosexual
orientation is not a sin; neither is it a barrier to ordination. However, the
refusal to repent of any self-acknowledged practice that Scripture, interpreted
through the confessions, calls sin, bars one from office.
Ordination is not a "right." It is a call to a particular function within the
church. It requires prayerful discernment, by congregations and presbyteries,
of those whose "manner of life" is a "demonstration of the Christian gospel"
(G-6.0106). Where there is sin, repentance leads to grace which demonstrates
that gospel. Where sin remains unacknowledged and unrepentant, there can be no
ordination. The standards are high.
Is homosexual practice sin? We listened to many who are struggling with that
question. Faithful people differ in their understandings of Scripture.
Homosexual behavior is listed in the Bible with sins that include adultery,
fornication, pride, greed, lust, jealousy, and malice. Although it is not a
greater sin than any other, we believe that Scripture, as guided by the
confessions, defines such practice as sin.
The foundational issue is biblical authority. All of us believe the Bible to
be authoritative and attempt to be faithful to God's revealed will in the
Scriptures as guided by the confessions. Our Constitution declares that it is
"necessary to the integrity and health of the church" that officers "adhere to
the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of
Confessions and the Form of Government" (G-6.0108a). While "God alone is Lord
of the conscience" (G-1.0301), ordained officers choose to exercise this
freedom "within certain bounds." Their "conscience is captive to the Word of
God as interpreted in the standards of the church . . ." (G-6.0108b).
Officers vow to be led by the confessions "as authentic and reliable
expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do" (G-14.0207c). We are
a confessional church, under the authority of the Word of God, the guidance of
The Book of Confessions, and under the church's discipline. It is not the
intention of this committee, through this recommendation to the presbyteries,
to change anything in the church's present standards and polity in relation to
divorce and remarriage.
The committee heard from many in the church who believed that the best road to
unity would be to allow the decisions on ordination to be decided solely by
congregations, sessions, and presbyteries. We agree with the Advisory
Committee on the Constitution that this would be a fundamental, substantive,
and far-reaching change in the foundation principles of a connectional church,
as expressed especially in the Form of Government, "the historic principles of
church government" (G-1.0400). Ordination is for the whole church. Any form of
"local option" would abandon our historic and distinctive foundation as a
confessional and connectional church. We must hold both of these together in
order to maintain the peace, unity, and purity of the church.
We conclude by calling on the church to be that listening, learning, and
healing community that Christ commands us to be, and we call the church to
encourage ministries of compassion and healing for all persons.
A Compendium
Prepared by Rev. John C. Bush, Pastor,
Grace Presbyterian Church,
Madison, Alabama
Note:
Scots Confession:
3.13 BLASPHEMY "to say that Christ abides in the hearts of those in who is no
spirit of sanctification."
3.14 ANYTHING CONTRARY to those attributes enumerated in this section, which
includes:
--to have one God; to worship & honor God;
--to call upon him in all our troubles; to reverence his holy Name; to hear
his Word and to believe it; and to share in his holy sacraments;
--Also, to honor father, mother, princes, rulers, and superior powers; to
love and support them, to obey their orders if they are not contrary to the
commands of God;
--to save the lives of the innocent; to repress tyranny; to defend the
oppressed;
--to keep our bodies clean and holy;
--to live in soberness and temperance;
--to deal justly with all men in word and deed;
--to repress any desire to harm our neighbor.
ALSO, NOT to:
--call on [God] alone when we have any need;
--hear his Word with reverence;
--have or worship idols; to maintain and defend idolatry;
--lightly to esteem the reverend name of God;
--profane, abuse or condemn the sacraments of Christ Jesus;
OR TO COMMIT any of the following:
--to disobey or resist any whom God has placed in authority, so long as they
do not exceed the bounds of their office;
--to murder, or to consent thereto;
--to bear hatred
--to let innocent blood be shed if we can prevent it.
--The breech of any other commandment.
ALSO, in religious matters and worship, those things which have no other
warrant than the invention and opinion of man.
3.18 TO RECEIVE OR ADMIT ANY INTERPRETATION of doctrine which is contrary to
any principal point of our faith, or to any other plain text of scripture, or
to the rule of love.
3.19 BLASPHEMY: to say that the Scriptures have no other authority save that
which they have received from the Kirk.
3.24 TO CONSPIRE to rebel or to overturn civil powers, as duly established;
--to fail to love, honor, fear and respect any who are set in authority, for
they are the lieutenants of God, and God himself sits and judges in their
councils.
Westminster Confession of Faith:
6.035 Everything that we are and everything we do, "although ... through Christ
pardoned and mortified," are "truly and properly sin."
6.121 To swear vainly or rashly by God's name, or to swear at all by anything
else, is sinful, except when imposed by lawful authority.
6.122 To refuse [to keep] an oath about anything that is good and just, when it
is imposed by lawful authority.
6.126 Monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular
obedience, ... are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may
entangle himself.
6.145 To claim that any man is the vicar of Christ and head of the Church.
6.168 Ignorant and wicked men who partake of or are admitted to the Lord's
supper commit great sin.
Westminster Larger Catechism:
See C-7.215, .219, .223, .229, .238, .240, .246, .249, .252, .255, .258, and
.261,
Contributors to this Document:
Rev. Barbara Bundick, Parish Associate, Hope Presbyterian Church, Wheaton,
IL.
Rev. John Bush, Pastor, Grace Presbyterian Church, Madison, AL.
Rev. James Collie, Regional Presbyter, Presbytery of Santa Fe.
Rev. Dean Lewis, H.R., Medanales, NM.
Rev. Dr. Howard Rice, Professor, San Francisco Theological Seminary.
Rev. Robert Wollenberg, Associate Co-Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, St.
Joseph, MO.
Bibliography:
Report of The 208th General Assembly Committee on Ordination and Human Sexuality: Preamble
What the Confessions Call Sin
This compendium contains only matters which are called "sin" specifically;
consult the confessions for other matters disapproved of but not named as being
sin. Some examples: C-5.191, 5.216, 5.247.