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":
“PRACTICE WHICH THE CONFESSIONS CALL SIN”

Fallacy. The Confessions condemn all same sex relationships.
Same sex relationships are referred to at very few places in the Confessions (if at all):
1. The Larger Westminster Catechism (7.249) condemns "unnatural lust." However
• Given current scientific learning about the nature/origins of sexual orientation, sessions and presbyteries may conclude that same sex attraction is not "unnatural for all persons". Indeed, the sin of "unnatural" lust might be committed by a gay/lesbian person seeking relations with a partner of the opposite sex.
• "Lust" may be understood as uncontrolled, illicit, or obsessive sexual interest not the kind of sexual sharing manifested in a loving and faithful relationship.
2. The Larger Westminster Catechism (7.249) also condemns "sodomy." However, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:1 26) suggests many definitions of that word none of which is a consensual, loving same sex relationship. Possibilities include:
• Rape.
• Injustice, oppression, cruelty, deceit, greed or idolatry. These are all things that may distort our sexual practice, and that unlike same sex conduct are cited as sins of Sodom elsewhere in Scripture.
• Inhospitality and hypocrisy, which also are cited as sins of Sodom in Scripture – ironically, the very things the Presbyterian Church may be guilty of in trying to limit ordained service by person in same-sex relationships.
3. The 1962 translation of the Heidelberg Confession 4.087) used in our Book of Confessions condemns (among other things) "homosexual perversion." However:
• Scholars have shown that the 1962 translation is not authentic. It added a reference to homosexuality which is not in earlier versions of the text
• Even if the 1962 translation were correct, "homosexual perversion" should refer to only a subset of homosexual acts exactly like "heterosexual perversion" relates to only a subset of heterosexual acts.
4. Even if these two texts proscribe some same sex conduct, they cannot be applied in the abstract. We recognize that many sins and obligations, while stated as absolutes in the Confessions, actually depend on the context and degree of one's conduct.
For example, session/presbytery may regard sexual sharing in a faithful, long term relationship very differently than indiscriminate/abusive sex with strangers.
5. Finally, even if 4.087 and 7.249 condemn all homosexual acts, we do not agree that all of the "sins" listed in the Confessions are in fact sinful. Our Confessions are subordinate to Scripture, and reflect a particular time in a living tradition. Part of faithful engagement with the Confessions is deciding what their relevance is for today. (18)
In sum, it is far from clear that the Confessions condemn all homosexual practice. Sessions and presbyteries must decide.

Critique of the Covenant Network’s Interpretation of
“Practice Which the Confessions Call Sin”
By Gordon E. Fish

The writers want you to think that … (1) the Confessions present an ambiguous understanding of what is and isn’t sinful behavior, especially regarding homosexual activity; (2) the Confessions have an outmoded perspective that must be discounted in light of modern scientific understanding; (3) the Confessions have been manipulated to distort the original writers’ intentions; and (4) examining bodies are free to interpret confessional standards contrary to the collective wisdom and guidance of the whole church.

“Practice” in the context of G-6.0106b:

G-6.0106b appropriately considers homosexual behavior in a larger context, setting a standard for persons to be ordained or installed as church officers based on refusal to repent of any “practice which the confessions call sin.” No act in isolation disqualifies a candidate. Instead, the bar arises when there is demonstrated “practice,” a standard that presumes elements such as habit, custom, repetition, and cultivation of intent.

An understanding of the legislative history is our starting point for understanding “practice.”(1) The committee report that brought what is now G-6.0106b to the floor of the 208th GA (1996)(2) echoed the Confession of 1967, identifying a need to “send a clear word that speaks to the moral confusion in our culture.”(3) The committee clearly regarded its proposed amendment as ensuring that the existing prohibition against the ordination and installation of unrepentant, self-acknowledged, practicing homosexual persons had the force of a binding, constitutional standard.

A critical detail is the committee’s expanded version of what is expressed in the abbreviated language of G-6.0106b: “…the refusal to repent of any self-acknowledged practice that Scripture, interpreted through the confessions, calls sin…” (emphasis added). There followed in the report a specific reference connecting that standard to the principle that an officer’s “conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church.”(4) Far from making an idol of the confessions, G-6.0106b is rightly grounded in Holy Scripture, which the Confessions interpret.

Examples of how the writers of “Interpreting G-6b” go wrong:

1. Attacking a Straw Person:
Taken at face value, “Interpreting G-6” invents a straw person in the supposed fallacy that “The Confessions condemn all same-sex relationships.” No responsible commentator ever made this claim. All of us live in a social matrix that includes many legitimate and healthy relationships with persons of both genders.

More likely, the authors are tacitly admitting that “same-sex relationships” can be presumed to involve an intentional homoerotic activity, while still maintaining a distinction between allowed and forbidden forms of such relationships. They offer no support, either from Scripture or the Confessions, for any such distinction. Their interpretation cannot meaningfully be reconciled with the “fidelity and chastity” sentence of G-6.0106b preceding “practice,” and so cannot be correct. Worse, their claim is expressly precluded by the GA’s Authoritative Interpretations of the Constitution that were confirmed by the GAPJC’s ruling in Benton et al. v. Hudson River Presbytery.(5)

2. Natural Theology: Subordinating the Authority of Scripture and the Confessions to Contemporary Science
There can be no doubt that the writers of the Westminster Larger Catechism understood the terms “unnatural lust” and “sodomy”(6) to include all homosexual relations. Similar legal and popular usage of these terms continues to the present. Westminster’s understanding of “natural” is clearly grounded in the teachings of both Jesus (Matt. 19.4-6; Mark 7.1-23 and 10.1-12) and Paul (Rom. 1.26-31).

Nevertheless, the authors suggest that the plain meaning of the Catechism be set aside, based on “current scientific learning.” They claim a governing body might consider that for a gay/lesbian person, homosexual activity is natural but heterosexual activity is unnatural. However, the scientific community is far from consensus about the origin or nature of sexual orientation. There is no scientific agreement that sexual orientation is either innate or immutably fixed. Simply put, the authors adopt a natural theology that trumps Scripture and the Confessions. Ironically, homosex proponents have frequently castigated defenders of G-6.0106b for allegedly relying on a natural theology.(7)

Even if sexual orientation could be shown to be innate, the authors’ discussion of “unnatural lust” still disregards the historic Reformed understanding of human depravity. Our confessions uniformly teach that every aspect of our nature, including our sexuality, is tainted by depravity. Merely because same-sex attraction purportedly is “natural” for some persons does not make homosexual conduct that ensues morally permissible.

Moreover, psychologists identify many forms of sexual orientation beyond heterosexuality and homosexuality. Would the authors be equally comfortable with expression of other sexual behaviors that are also “natural” for these other orientations? Would they also accept any other behavior that might also be shown to have at least some basis in genetic predisposition? Having “bought [us] with a price,” does not the risen Christ have every right to expect us to shun even what “comes naturally,” be it pride, anger, or impermissible sexual expression? (8)

Significantly, the authors are quite content and highly selective in using findings of the natural and social sciences that apparently support their argument, while conveniently neglecting abundant documentation of the severe physical and psychological risks that accompany some forms of homosexual practice, especially among those with multiple partners. (9)

3. Faulty Analogies:
The authors confound the duty of a judicatory to properly construe a provision with its duty to apply the provision in specific cases.

Clearly, many sins named in the Confessions, like the “provoking words” cited (10)by the authors, are by their very nature qualified and contextual. The Confessions’ discussions of sins wisely are replete with explicit qualifiers, such as “excessive,” “needless,” and “unreasonable.” On the other hand, many other sins have no element, either express or implied, of context or degree. There is nothing conditional about rape, the use of false weights in commerce, or racism, to name but a few. Both kinds of sins – qualified and unqualified – are properly stated in absolute terms. A judicial body must determine whether a given act falls within the reach of a properly construed provision; it is not permitted to insert qualification into a provision that has none. For example, a court’s job is to determine whether given words, spoken in a particular context, are in fact provocative, but it has no authority to say that provocative words are allowable. The authors, on the other hand, seemingly want every form of sin to be qualified and relativized.

4. Translation Red Herrings:
Relying on a recent address by Jack Rogers, the authors make a great deal of the addition of “homosexual perversion” to Question 87 (C-4.087) in the 1962 translation of the Heidelberg Catechism that is part of the Book of Confessions. Arguably they are attempting to create doubt about what the Confessions truly teach.(11) The answer in Q. 87 expressly claims to be based directly on something Scripture teaches. It clearly mirrors 1 Cor. 6.9-11, which lists a wide range of sinful practices that exemplify the behavior of impenitent, ungrateful persons. (12)

It is palpably ironic that the authors show a greater interest in the original-language text of the Heidelberg Catechism than they do in the text of Holy Scripture. Rogers asserts, without offering any specific evidence, that the insertion of “homosexual perversion” was gratuitous and the result of bias. Tellingly, he completely avoids the obvious point that the revisions made Q. 87 more precisely parallel the actual text of Scripture.(13) By emphasizing the original text of C-4.087 over the underlying Scriptural text, the writers of “Interpreting G-6” in effect subordinate Scripture to the Confessions, the very charge they level at G-6.0106b itself.

Rogers doesn’t even consider the different cultural context of the church now and when the Heidelberg Catechism was written. Isn’t it just possible that the same “anarchy in sexual relationships” cited by the writers of the Confession of 1967 now requires the fuller, more precise and refined language in the revised Q. 87? In the end, the 1962 English text of the Heidelberg Catechism is what our church approved, Q. 87 and all. Any earlier text is immaterial; we believe what we received.

5. Disregarding the History and Context of G-6.0106b
G-6.0106b did not appear magically in a vacuum, but arose in a context set by more than two decades of discussion, General Assembly actions, and decisions of church courts. There can be no serious doubt of the intent of the original drafters and the understanding of those who voted for or against it, that G-6.0106b prohibits ordination and installation of unrepentant, self-acknowledged, homosexually active persons. In Londonderry, the GAPJC has ruled that G-6.0106b can be given this interpretation in harmony with other constitutional provisions. As a matter of interpretation of constitutional law, G-6.0106b must be understood thus.

The weakness of the authors’ argument is apparent in wanting it “both ways.” If G-6.0106b could reasonably be interpreted as the authors advocate, why did the Covenant Network and other affinity groups work so passionately to defeat it when it was initially considered? Why have they repeatedly proposed its repeal or amendment? Why do they continue to publicly commit themselves to working for the repeal of previous Authoritative Interpretations and G-6.0106b itself? Why have gay/lesbian advocates taken contrary positions in specific cases before PJCs?(14)

6. Irresponsibly Advising Sessions/Presbyteries to Disregard the Constitution
The authors’ statement that “[W]e do not agree that all of the ‘sins’ listed in the Confessions are, in fact, sinful” is irresponsible and divisive advice to the church. In effect, the authors ask individual examining bodies to flout both the collective wisdom of the PCUSA in adopting G-6.0106b, as well as the consistent witness of the worldwide Church through the ages. The suggestion that any one person or governing body is free to decide that parts of the Confessions are not “relevant” undermines the connectionalism that is foundational to our mutual covenant relationship.

The Confessions together list some 250 or so different sins. The vast majority present no interpretive challenge. As the late elder and attorney Julius B. Poppinga once wryly observed, there is no outcry to permit the ordination of unrepentant sloths. In reality, only a handful of the other “sins” have been used to attack G-6.0106b as unworkable, notably Sabbath keeping, usury, and artistic representations of Jesus. The church has given wise counsel that very adequately addresses the supposed problems.

The PCUSA has made the determination that Scripture and the Confessions condemn all homosexual practice. That understanding is spelled out in both Authoritative Interpretations and G-6.0106b. Sessions or presbyteries are free to disagree, but they are not permitted to set aside or treat as “not relevant” any requirement of church law, including G-6.0106b’s prohibition against the ordination or installation of self-acknowledged, practicing homosexual persons. To do so undermines our connectional relationship and the basis for our unity in polity.

Final thoughts:
At an even deeper level, mustn’t a Christian always be suspicious of attempts to legitimate any behavior by narrowing the definition of what is and isn’t truly sinful? Isn’t that exactly opposite the trajectory Jesus set in the Sermon on the Mount by broadening our understanding of the sin of adultery to include lust, and broadening the sin of killing to include anger? Our capacity for self-deception and sophistry is boundless. It is at our own peril that we ignore what the Church, through its entire history and throughout the world, has understood to be sinful behavior.

Christians are called to “newness of life.”(15) The Apostle Paul’s definitive theology of God’s grace in Rom. 1-6 teaches that we are enabled to repent and are freed from the slavery that would bind us to sinful practice. Paul clearly regards homosexual practice, even in consensual forms, as one manifestation of sexual immorality and idolatry (Rom. 1.25-28). But in Rom. 6.19, he describes our newness of life as liberation from slavery to idolatry, including its expression in sexual immorality. Pointedly, he includes homosexual behavior by repeating the same expression for sexual immorality used in Rom. 1. (16)

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. 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
2. 208th GA Minutes, 1996, pp. 78-79
3. C-9.47
4. G-6.0108b
5. GAPJC Remedial Case 212-11. “[The Benton] decision should not be construed as an endorsement of homosexual conjugal practice proscribed by the General Assembly.”
6. Included in the Larger Catechism’s discussion of sins forbidden by the Seventh Commandment, C-7.249.
7. Jack Rogers, Address to Covenant Network NorthWest Regional Conference, 2003. The reader would be well advised also to consult a response by Robert A. J. Gagnon, which provides an extended and meticulous analysis. Gagnon argues persuasively that Rogers’s position is undermined by historical inaccuracy, flawed exegesis, unacknowledged adoption of a natural theology inimical to a Reformed outlook, and mischaracterization of others’ positions.
8. 1 Cor. 6:20 (the context is specifically sexual conduct, i.e. fornication). See also a helpful discussion by Gordon P. Hugenberger, Park Street Church, Boston, MA.
9. Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001); and Thomas E. Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995) provide extensive discussion and documentation of these risks.
10. Taught as a violation of the Sixth Commandment by the Westminster Larger Catechism, C-7.246.
11. The bare facts of Rogers’s account of the inclusion of “homosexual perversion” are not in dispute.
12. Despite claims to the contrary, the scholarly consensus across the theological spectrum is that 1 Cor. 6.9 addresses a broad range of homosexual behavior.
13. Rogers’s omission can hardly be coincidental. His unsubstantiated charge of bias against the catechism translators begs a further question: Would he similarly impugn the translators of every recent version of the Bible? While scholars debate the precise meaning of the text of 1 Cor. 6.9-11, even the most extreme agree it implicates at least some form of homosexual conduct; all the translators render it accordingly.
14. Significantly, two of the authors of “Interpreting G-6” have personally made such arguments, Mr. Oddleifson as respondent’s counsel in Londonderry and Rev. Moffett as pastor of the respondent church in Hair et al. v. First Presbyterian Church of Stamford.
15. C-5.101; C-6.154; C-7.185; C-9.21-24
16. Gagnon, supra.
    

Read more articles in this series

Return to Coalition Home Page