Those 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 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. (Book of Order, G-6.0106b)

Summary and Conclusion in Response to the Covenant Network’s
“Interpreting Book of Order G-6.0106b”
by Gordon E. Fish

The Covenant Network is at a crossroads. On the one hand, the Network’s leaders, some of them respected members of this denomination who have held high office, profess their honorable intention – they claim to work responsibly in pursuing their goals, while fully complying with the Constitution of the PCUSA. However, the Covenant Network’s paper, “Interpreting G6.0106b” takes a very different tack.

The preceding chapters in the present series demonstrate that the fundamental thesis of “Interpreting G6.0106b” regarding ordination standards is simply untenable. The paper is a “how-to” guide for individuals and governing bodies to feign compliance with the Constitution, while defying its clear meaning, intent, and spirit. (1) The sophistry and deception forming the very fabric of “Interpreting G6.0106b” belie any claim to honorable intentions. The Covenant Network cannot, with integrity, pretend to have it both ways.

The inherent duplicity of “Interpreting G-6.0106b” is further exposed by other words and actions of the Covenant Network itself. For example, in a story reported by the Presbyterian News Service in early 2004, Covenant Network Advisory Board member Ronald Stone makes this telling admission: “I raised four children. I would never teach them to be chaste; that means a virgin. I always taught them to be responsible.” (2) “Interpreting G-6.0106b” asserts that “chaste” has a diametrically opposite meaning from that expressed by Stone in his moment of candor.

No honest person can deny the history of G-6.0106b. The intent of the committee that brought what is now G-6.0106b to the floor of the 208th General Assembly (1996) was clear. Nor can there be any doubt about what was in the minds of presbyters throughout the country who voted to ratify the GA’s actions. Those on both sides knew they were voting to put into the Constitution a binding prohibition against the ordination and installation of those in unrepentant, self-acknowledged, homosexual relationships. The testimony and debates at General Assembly and in our presbyteries is evidence of the plain meaning of this paragraph of our constitution. “Interpreting G-6.0106b” invents a history that never existed, relies on perversion of the English language, and suborns deception by candidates and examining bodies.

As part of a constitution, G-6.0106b must be understood according to principles of constitutional interpretation. (3) Key concepts for reading a constitution include:

1. Interpretation begins with the necessary meaning of the text, amplified by the framers’ intent and legislative history.

The Covenant Network paper denies the plain meaning of the words and the intent of the framers of G-6.0106b as well as the court decisions based on this paragraph.

2. Provisions should be understood in their full context and in harmony with the whole.

Every direct reference to sexual behavior in the Constitution is consistent with and supports the language of G-6.0106b.

3. Preference is given to interpretation that effectuates, rather than defeats, the purpose of the provision in question.

The Covenant Network paper clearly seeks to turn the purpose of G-6.0106b on its head and defeat the intent of the provision.

“Interpreting G-6.0106b” fails on all three counts.

The PCUSA has incorporated G-6.0106b into the Book of Order, and with increasingly substantial majorities has affirmed that action by defeating repeated actions to remove it. In doing so, our highest judicatory – the General Assembly – and the presbyteries have collectively interpreted the Scripture and our confessional standards. Confirming the church’s historic position (first expressly made part of Constitutional polity in the 1978 Authoritative Interpretation), the GA and presbyteries have mutually determined that the Scriptures and the Confessions unequivocally teach that “fidelity and chastity” are particular standards of conduct required of officers. Church officers have willingly vowed to be governed by the church’s polity. The interpretation expressed in G-6.0106b is thus settled and binding on the governing bodies of the whole church. No PCUSA officer, governing body, or Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) can lawfully set aside the requirements of G-6.0106b, or determine that “fidelity and chastity” are not required standards for all church officers. (4)

G-6.0106b rightly recovers the historic Reformed principle that Christians are to live in obedience to Holy Scripture. The language of G-6.0106b follows in a clear progression from the preceding section, G-6.0106a: Presbyterian office bearers (ministers, elders, and deacons) are to be persons marked by strong faith, dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. We acknowledge Holy Scripture as the unique witness to Jesus Christ, and in it we learn of the newness of life to which we are called. Our knowledge of Jesus Christ flows inseparably from the revelation of Holy Scripture, which we are to “receive and obey as the word of God written,” (5) just as we are to hear and trust and obey Jesus Christ, the one Word of God, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture. (6) In keeping with the bounds placed by G-6.0108, the ordination vows of all PCUSA church officers include a voluntary acceptance of the Confessions as secondary standards of belief and conduct:

Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God? (7)

G-6.0106b wisely reflects a Reformed understanding of human sinfulness and frailty. It addresses “practice,” not acts in isolation. It treats refusal to repent of forbidden homosexual conduct on an equitable footing with heterosexual misconduct and, indeed, with sinful practice in any form. G-6.0106b also respects the church’s willingness to hear voices from many ages, pointing to what the Confessions (plural) call sin. The text of G-6.0106b requires us to read the Book of Confessions in dialogue, to hear their witness collectively, rather than in isolation. “Interpreting G-6.0106b” rejects all these principles.

“Interpreting G-6.0106b” is not a harmless academic exercise.

The Covenant Network’s paper already is being employed as a strategy in ordaining and installing officers in our sessions and presbyteries. The collective judgment of the PCUSA expressed in section G-6.0106b of our Constitution is being intentionally frustrated in the work of some Sessions, Committees on Ministry, Committees on Preparation, and on the floors of some of our presbyteries. Orderly, constitutional government is a rich heritage of Presbyterians and worthy of our profound respect. The PCUSA is well served by vigilance that requires proper and sometimes hard questions, especially at the point of entry into service for our leaders.

Having failed to convince the church to reverse course, whether by direct theological or Scriptural argument or by judicial process, opponents of G-6.0106b now attempt to convince us that the Constitution says the very opposite of what it says. The Covenant Network’s “Interpreting G-6.0106b” is a disservice to the church, because it dishonors our history, our theology, and the Constitutional principles on which our denomination is based.

Gordon E. Fish, Ph.D., is an elder and member of Grace Presbyterian Church, Montclair, NJ. Dr. Fish is a solid-state physicist and is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He assisted the late Julius B. Poppinga in preparing the Londonderry and Benton judicial cases and argued both before the GAPJC.

1. Note also recent advice by “Interpreting G-6.0106b” author Oddleifson: “If the candidate does not believe that same-sex relationships are inherently sinful and the candidate is asked ‘Do you engage in a practice which the Confessions call sin?’, he or she can honestly answer ‘No.’”
2. Emphasis added. Reported by the Presbyterian News Service.
3. This section draws extensively from analysis by the late Julius B. Poppinga, Esq., originally published in Presbyterian Outlook in 1999 but also available on the Presbyterian Coalition’s website.
4. Londonderry v. Presbytery of Northern New England, GAPJC Remedial Case 213-2.
5. Confession of 1967, C-9.27, emphasis added
6. Theological Declaration of Barmen, C-8.11
7. Emphasis added. The identical question is asked of elders and deacons (G-14.0207c), ministers (G-14.0405b(3)), and commissioned lay pastors (G-14.0801g(3)).
   

Read more articles in this series

Return to Coalition Home Page