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)

What the Covenant Network Erroneously Contends in
"Interpreting Book of Order G-6.0106b":
"DETERMINING FITNESS FOR OFFICE"

1. Sessions and presbyteries are required to examine candidates, and to determine whether they are fit to serve; before they may be installed. However, sessions and presbyteries may not conduct an inquisition. They must proceed with discretion and sensitivity, showing profound respect and pastoral care for the candidate.

2. That a candidate is openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender does not create any issue under G 6.0106b. Same sex orientation alone is not a bar to service the issue under G 6.0106b is sexual practice.

3. Sessions and presbyteries often ask all candidates generally, "Having read what the Constitution requires, do you wish to acknowledge any impediment to your ordination or installation?" If the candidate says "no," that generally should end the inquiry.

4. In addition, a session or presbytery must inquire more specifically about a person's sexual practice if it has "direct and specific knowledge" not mere suspicion that the person is in violation of G 6.0106b. As a practical matter, such "direct and specific knowledge" is likely to exist only where

• The candidate chooses to disclose that s/he is sexually active; or
• An accuser comes forward after personally having been party to, or witnessed a sexual act.

Sessions and presbyteries may not inquire about a candidate's sexual practice

• Simply because that person is openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender; or<
• Based on mere "hunch, gossip or stereotype."

5. Even if specific inquiry is made, each candidate has the right to decide whether or not to discuss his/her sexual practice. Candidates do not disqualify themselves by refusing to do so in such cases, sessions and presbyteries still may find them fit for office.

6. If a candidate acknowledges ongoing sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage, session/presbytery must interpret G-6.0106b and decide how it applies in that case. DIfferent ways of interpreting key terms in G-6.0106b are discussed later in this paper.

7. If session/presbytery interprets G-6.0106b in ways with which the candidate disagrees, the candidate may declare a scruple. It is not apprpriate to state a "scruple" until it is clear what is being dissented from - after G-6.0106b has been interpreted.
If the candidate declares a scruple, session/presbytery must deide whether the scruple represents such a serious deprture from what is "essential" to Reformed faith and polity that the candidate is "incapable of ommunion" with the church. If it finds that this is the case, the candidate may not serve.

Our Presbyterian history suggests that the concerns of G-6.0106b may not rise to the level of critical importance in Reformed faith and polity:

• Questions about sexual practice would appear much less important than matters we decided are "non-essential" during our last big debate about our ordination standards (in teh 1920s). Then we decided that ordination cannot be conditioned on a person's acceptance of traditional views about, e.g., the Virgin birth, miracles of Christ, substitutionary atonement, or inerrancy of Scripture.
• We amended the onfessions' provisions regarding divorce and re-marriage in teh 1950s - strong evidence that our traditional understandings of sexual relationship are important but not critical to Reformed faith.
• We agree that governing bodies, in determining what is essential, will consider both doctrine and a person's whole manner of life - "by their fruits you shall know them."

Critique of the Covenant Network's Interpretation of
"Determining Fitness for Office"
by James D. Berkley

The writers want you to think that ... (1) sessions and presbyteries should be fearful about what they are allowed to ask of candidates, and (2) candidates have complete permission to withhold or disguise pertinent information about their sexual practice. The writers invent unsupportable claims about the kind of evidence that can raise doubts about a candidate's fitness, and they attempt to bar the kinds of prudent inquiry a session or presbytery simply must make to be faithful to their task. Then, if a candidate truly is at odds with constitutional requirements, the writers make the bogus claims that the candidates can "declare a scruple," sessions and presbyteries can decide the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean, and sexual practice really is not a matter worth considering after all -- all this to skirt simple, honest compliance with the Constitution.

Examples of how they go wrong:
1. The writers want you to think that "direct and specific knowledge" of a candidate's sexual practice means that "the candidate chooses to disclose that s/he is sexually active; or an accuser comes forward after personally having been party to, or witnessed, a sexual act." In other words, the writers are claiming that either the candidate just flat out tells you "I'm sexually active outside marriage" or you must either be their sex partner or a voyeur in order to pursue any questioning. These are not the conditions the court used. The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission wrote in the Presbytery of San Joaquin v. Presbytery of Redwoods (2003) ruling: "Reasonable grounds [to compel a governing body to pursue further inquiry of a candidate] must include factual allegations of how, when, where, and under what circumstances the individual was self-acknowledging a practice which the confessions call a sin." Thus simple documentation of a specific instance when a candidate is on record in speech or writing that he or she is homosexually active should be sufficient. It is preposterous to declare that one need be there to observe the candidate's transgression flagrante delicto!

2. The writers falsely assert that "Sessions and presbyteries may not inquire about a candidate's sexual practice...[based on sexual orientation or hunch, gossip or stereotype.]" The writer's alleged source is again the GAPJC case San Joaquin v. Redwoods (2003). But the court simply did not say that. The court case was about whether the Presbytery of Redwoods should have actually pursued further the questioning of candidate Kathleen Morrison, once it learned that she was an activist lesbian woman with a partner. The court wasn't deciding if the presbytery could question Ms. Morrison; it was deciding if the presbytery was negligent in not questioning her further. The court decided the presbytery, in this case, didn't have "a positive obligation to make further inquiry," and was not "compelled" to make further inquiry. Their right to make further inquiry if they so chose was not questioned; they simply weren't deemed sufficiently negligent for not pursuing the questioning. This case cannot be cited to prove that further questioning is forbidden. Indeed, under circumstances where evidence is presented, further questioning would be required.

3. They state unequivocally that "each candidate has the right to decide whether or not to discuss his/her sexual practice. Candidates do not disqualify themselves by refusing to do so...." This is simply preposterous. What other subjects could candidates likewise decide they don't want to discuss: theology, seminary choice, internships? Why would candidates get a free pass on their sexual morality? Think of the consequences: It would render a session or presbytery unable to perform their necessary duty of determining the moral suitability of candidates to be ordained. With sexual practice completely off limits for questioning, sexual predators, chronic adulterers, libertines, rapists, and pedophiles could also sail through the examination with immunity, alongside practicing homosexual and lesbian candidates who choose to remain mum. The purpose and intent of G-6.0106b could be frustrated with a simple, "I don't want to talk about that." The writers of "Interpreting G-6" reference the Hair v. First Presby. Church of Stamford (2000) case, which made its way twice to the GAPJC, only to be eventually rendered moot. The GAPJC never judged the merits of the case or rendered a decision.

4 They would give sessions or presbyteries unlimited license to "interpret G-6.0106b and decide how it applies" when "a candidate acknowledges ongoing sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage." What interpreting? The person simply cannot be ordained, according to church law. Our Stated Clerk says in an Advisory Opinion: "Sexually active homosexual persons may not be ordained." The GAPJC ruled that "while one is free to hold and decorously to advocate ideas that are contrary to [a provision of the Constitution], one may not act in contravention of such authority" (Londonderry v. Presbytery of Northern New England, 2000). The court further held that "there are no constitutional grounds for a governing body to fail to comply with an express provision of the Constitution, however inartfully stated. Assertions of inconsistency, confusion, or ambiguity may justify the right to protest. They do not create a right to disregard any part of the Constitution." No governing body is allowed to come up with idiosyncratic "interpretations" that serve only to circumvent the Constitution's express provisions.

5. They stretch history to claim that "if session/presbytery interprets G-6.0106b in ways with which the candidate disagrees, the candidate may declare a scruple." This term scruple is nowhere to be found now in the Book of Order. Governing bodies cannot grant a personal exemption to practice the very sin Presbyterians have determined impermissible! The Book of Order section cited, G-6.0108b, is about the limits of personal freedom, not its abuse. In a previous era when candidates subscribed to the Westminster Confession, some were allowed to state "scruples" for minor points of doctrine they could not affirm, and presbytery could then decide if the departure was allowable. But that process concerned doctrine, not polity, and besides, it is no longer Presbyterian practice. A candidate cannot select which parts of the polity he or she will choose to be governed by.

6. They suggest that "the concerns of G-6.0106b may not rise to the level of critical importance in Reformed faith and polity...." This is entirely wrong, as the Londonderry case would attest. The Maxwell case in the 1970s, about a candidate named Kenyon, proved that willingness to ordain women was a Presbyterian essential. The enormous denominational effort expended now on ordination standards likewise proves that that there are essentials in polity as well as faith. If Presbyterians cared little about the sexual practices of our leaders, why have we spent nearly three decades debating little else? How one lives one's life in obedience to the Word of God and the will of God as revealed to us in Scripture is of enormous importance. The very Book of Order section the writers reference, supposedly to buttress their point, says clearly: "... no opinion can be either more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man's opinions are.... Otherwise, it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it" (G-1.0304). Whether one likes it or not, Presbyterians have placed G-6.0106b in our Constitution, and we do consider it crucial. Presbyterians expect ordained leaders to live a life of moral purity. We've determined that "the practice of homosexuality is sin," and thus "unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination..." (Authoritative Interpretation, 1978).

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

Read more articles in this series

Return to Coalition Home Page