Editor's Note: At their November 2003 conference, the Covenant Network distributed a paper titled “Interpreting Book of Order G-6.0106b.” The paper offers candidates for office as well as sessions and presbyteries sly ways to circumvent our denomination’s constitutional standards for ordination. Below you will find first a letter of introduction from Jerry Andrews, second a section of what the Covenant Network paper wrote in error, and finally a critique of that section of the paper. The critique is part of a series of responses to the Covenant Network paper that appears on the Coalition’s website. Presbyterians for Renewal has posted the complete Covenant Network paper on their website so that others may view the errors firsthand. It can be found here.

A Response by Renewal Leaders to
The Covenant Network's
"Interpreting Book of Order G-6.0106b"

Alas. It has come to this. The interminable debate among us on whether the gender of sexual partners has any moral implications has degenerated into sophistic arguments over the meaning of well-known words whose denotations were clear--painfully clear--to us all just recently. In light of consistent (one might say persistent) scriptural testimony that the Creator has designed and commanded that human sexuality be expressed fully only within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, perhaps it is not surprising that arguments to the contrary reveal increasingly dim inventions.

For example: recently, three times, at great length, the church has debated--and by increasingly wider margins has affirmed--fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness for her officers. Some, to be sure, have argued vigorously the contrary because this affirmation bars ordination to any who actively and without repentance engage in homosexual unions. Now that argument has been abandoned by a document that proclaims that no such barrier exists. Words like fidelity, marriage, chastity, and single don't mean ... well, they don't mean what they mean. We, the opponents of the biblical affirmations, were wrong all along, they imply, for we did not know then what we know now. These words don't mean ... much of anything.

This is sophistry.

But it is not to be ignored. Some are not at peace with the decision of the church, and though the ever-wider consensus reveals a growing comfort within the church regarding its own decision on these matters, not all are convinced. Nor need they be. The debate continues.

This paper seeks to answer new arguments clearly and gracefully. We hope it is helpful, even if not fully persuasive for all. We hope it clarifies the issues, and through answering any and all objections raised by the opponents of the church's decision, no matter how extraneous (or, if it may be said with grace, how increasingly desperate) those arguments appear, we seek to call attention to what should be regarded as determinate for all of us: What does Scripture say? When the church debates the meaning of Scripture, we, while still in disagreement, are at our best.

This paper, in that light, seeks to serve the church--the whole church.

Jerry Andrews
Co-Moderator, The Presbyterian Coalition
March 8, 2004

A Critique of
"Interpreting Book of Order
§ G-6.0106b"


by
James D. Berkley, Bob Davis, Gordon E. Fish,
Peggy Hedden, Paul Leggett, and Jim Tony

An effort to reverse the meaning of our constitutional standards for leadership is circulating in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) In November 2003, authors R. Blair Moffett, Doug Nave, and Peter Oddleifson introduced a paper titled "Interpreting Book of Order §G-6.0106b" (which we will refer to as "Interpreting G-6") at the Covenant Network Conference in Washington, D.C. This disturbing paper, which bears the logo of the Covenant Network, imparts a confused and foreign meaning to the section of the Presbyterian Book of Order on ordination standards (often referred to as "fidelity and chastity". The paper trains candidates for ordination in ways to skirt truthful answers in examinations, and offers presbyteries and sessions sly ways to try to circumvent the Constitution if they so choose -- all this, under the guise of "reasonable interpretation." The paper's claims, reasoning, and alleged facts repeatedly fall far short of accuracy or logical consistency.

Following is a critique of each section of the paper, written by various authors to set the record straight. The audacity of "Interpreting G-6" -- which contorts the recent historical record and attempts to make our ordination standards say just the opposite of what they do mean -- requires that the paper's errors be recognized, its fallacies countered, and its confusions cleared up. The outright invention riddling "Interpreting G-6" cannot be allowed to stand as fact, and would cause great harm to our common life and witness if left uncorrected.

Readers are invited to reference a copy of "Interpreting G-6," that Presbyterians for Renewal has posted on their website so that others may view the errors firsthand. . Other hyperlinks are nested throughout the web version of this set of critiques.


What the Covenant Network Erroneously Contends in,
"Interpreting Book of Order G-6.0106b":
"INTRODUCTION"

For roughly twenty years (1978-1997), the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its predecessor denominations took the position that "unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination." The intent behind this statement was clear and exclusionary. However, the church was wracked by constant debate whether the rule was right, and whether it had been legitimately adopted so as to bind those who disagreed with it. In 1996-97, in order to end the continuing controversy, the church adopted "Amendment B" as new section G-6.0106b in the Book of Order. While the church easily might have codified the clear and exclusionary language of the older statement, had that been the will of the majority, it chose not to do so. Instead, the church adopted more flexible language that respected the traditional prerogatives of sessions and presbyteries to interpret and apply Scripture in assessing the fitness of candidates for office. Section G-6.0106b says that:

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 between 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.

Conservative elements in the church supported Amendment B when it was being debated, because they recognized that more exclusionary language would not win the votes required for passage. However, once G-6.0106b became part of the Book of Order, they began to argue that it means much more than it says - that it clearly prohibits ordained service by all persons in a same-sex relationship. Progressives, obviously, disagreed.

The precise meaning of G-6.0106b has not yet been determined. For the first five years of its existence, the church was occupied with various efforts to nullify or rescind the measure entirely. Since mid-2002, however, we have been in what some have called a "judicial season" in which conservatives are making a sustained effort to enforce their understanding of G-6.0106b. The wording of "Amendment B" is finally being tested.

Progressives are united in their determination to remove G-6.0106b from the Book of Order. It is a divisive measure that is inconsistent with the Gospel, threatens violence to numerous other provisions of the Constitution, and has proved deeply hurtful in our community of faith. In the meantime, until removal is achieved, we must engage in the hard work of interpretation It is time to determine - in light of the whole Constitution - what G-6.0106b really means. This paper discusses what we believe are reasonable and faithful interpretations of the Constitution and decisions of our General Assembly and permanent judicial commissions. Some of these positions have not yet been tested in church courts, and our law will continue to develop. However, we trust that this will be a helpful resource as we work together to honor our Constitution and calling as faithful parts of the Body of Christ.


Critique of the Covenant Network
"Interpreting Book of Order § G-6.0106b"
"Introduction"

by James D. Berkley

The writers want you to think that ... the current Presbyterian policy about homosexual behavior is only a recent invention, and that it's contrary to the Bible, contradictory to the meaning of the earlier Authoritative Interpretation (1978), and contrary to the intent of Presbyterians as a whole. The Introduction attempts to recast the events and decisions that got us where we are today, posing preposterous notions about what Presbyterians believed when large majorities voted to include and retain G-6.0106b, and a minority opposed it -- both knowing full well what it meant. Finally, the paper deems itself "reasonable and faithful" in its contrived interpretation of the Constitution -- a laughable stretch by any imagination.

Examples of how they go wrong:

1. They begin by saying Presbyterians opposed the ordination of persons characterized by unrepentant homosexual practice "for roughly twenty years (1978-1997)." Make that more like always. There has never been a time Christians have allowed homosexual practice. Never. It is only since 1978 that moral revisionists have made it necessary for our biblical standards to be spelled out officially.

2. They call the Authoritative Interpretation (see especially p. 55ff) "exclusionary," when it is in fact a strongly pastoral and sensitive document that is also faithful to Scripture and the will of God. Such faithfulness necessarily prohibits from ordained service persons persisting in any unrepentant practice of sin.

3. They lay the blame on the Authoritative Interpretation for the church being "wracked by constant debate," when that blame rightfully rests on those like themselves who agitate to pervert God's Word and will for our sexual behavior.

4. They claim: "Conservative elements in the church supported Amendment B when it was being debated, because they recognized that more exclusionary language would not win the votes required for passage. However, once G-6.0106b became part of the Book of Order, they began to argue that it means much more than it says -- that it clearly prohibits ordained service by all persons in same-sex relationships." This is entirely misleading on several counts!

 5. They contend that "the precise meaning of G-6.0106b has not yet been determined." Odd. It was crystal clear when sides chose up for its original debate, and when it was twice up for removal. The meaning is still clear when presbyteries yet overture General Assembly to remove G-6.0106b. The meaning was once clear even to "Interpreting G-6" authors Oddleifson and Moffett when they argued against it in judicial cases before the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission! In addition, Covenant Network came into existence to fight Amendment B and exists to remove it -- not because the meaning is unclear but because they know full well what it means and oppose that meaning. So how can they now contend with a straight face that the meaning is unclear?

6. They grossly downplay how wildly unsuccessful their efforts have been to rescind G-6.0106b, calling them "various efforts to nullify or rescind the measure," efforts, by the way, that have repeatedly troubled the church over a decided matter. They apparently hope people now will fall for their new tactic of throwing dust in the air to confuse things, since G-6.0106b detractors realize they would again taste bitter defeat in yet another direct vote.

7. They say that "some of these positions [to be advanced later in the paper] have not yet been tested in church courts," which is understatement to the point of farce. Their positions sometimes contradict what the courts have said or are too specious to make it to court.

8. They make the audacious claim of working "to honor our Constitution." One cannot honor a document by playing fast and loose with its language and intent. G-6.0106b is in our Constitution because the strong majority of Presbyterians believe sexually active homosexual persons (and heterosexuals outside their marriage) are breaking God's moral law without repentance, and thus are not ready to serve in ordained leadership. Should the paper "Interpreting G-6" serve to confuse the issue and circumvent the Constitution, in no way would that honor either the Constitution or the will of the church. That slick tactic would instead dishonor both the Constitution and those attempting it.

9. They try to contend that in approving G-6.0106b, the church could have been clear, but instead "adopted more flexible language" than what was in the Authoritative Interpretation. Preposterous! Both statements clearly have the same result: persons actively participating in homosexual practices who do not repent of such behavior cannot be ordained. What, exactly, is "flexible" about "the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness" as a standard for ordination? If you're married, you must remain true to your spouse; if you are not married, you must abstain from sex. No flex in that!

10. They accuse conservatives of "making a sustained effort to enforce their understanding of G-6.0106b." Everyone ought to press for the clear meaning that General Assembly, the judicial commissions, and the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly join us in saying that G-6.0106b means. Only those who have lost the battle legislatively are now disputing the obvious meaning of G-6.0106b, in an apparent attempt to use smoke and mirrors to vacate its well-established meaning.

11. They claim "It is time to determine -- in the light of the whole Constitution -- what G-6.0106b really means." No, it is time to throw aside sophistry and live under the authority of our Constitution by upholding our standards for ordination.


James D. Berkley, D.Min., is Issues Ministry Director of Presbyterians For Renewal and a minister member of Seattle Presbytery.


Return to Coalition Home Page