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":
“SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS”

Fallacy. Persons in committed, same sex relationships may be presumed to be sexually active, and therefore may not serve in ordained office.
1. A committed lifetime partnership is not necessarily a sexual relationship.

• The Directory of Worship provides warrant for the church to support and celebrate the formation of same sex unions, while not endorsing conjugal practice. Governing bodies may not assume that such unions are sexual in nature.

• In a case where a gay elder elect was known to have been in a “committed loving relationship” with his live in partner for over ten years, the PJCs held that such a partnership should not be presumed to have a conjugal element

• Sociological research shows that, as with heterosexual couples, a sizeable number of same sex couples are not sexually active.

• The fallacy of presuming that a committed relationship is sexual is shown in the highly publicized case of Dr. Jeffrey John, a clergyman in the Church of England who stated in 2003 that he had been in a same sex relationship for 27 years but that he and his partner stopped having sexual relations in 1991.

2. Sessions and presbyteries may not discriminate against same sex partners on the basis of “hunch, gossip, or stereotype.”

• Sessions or presbyteries may not inquire into the sexual conduct of same sex couples if they do not also, e.g., inquire about the moral quality of heterosexual couples’ sexual conduct, assume that college roommates are sleeping together, inquire whether hand holding by heterosexual couples suggests greater sexual intimacy elsewhere, and the like.

Critique of the Covenant Network Interpretation of
“Same Sex Relationships”
by Robert Davis

The Covenant Network’s discussion of same-sex relationships rests upon a false premise, urges the abdication of the third mark of the church (discipline), and ignores the sovereignty of God.

The Covenant Network document manufactures a premise and then promotes a fallacy. The manufactured premise is that Persons in committed, same sex relationships may be presumed to be sexually active, and therefore may not serve in ordained office. It then goes on to promote the fallacy: that same sex relationships must be presumed not to be sexually active and, therefore, no questions relative to the relationship may be asked. The document is wrong on both counts.

First, there is no broad blanket presumption in ordaining bodies of sexual activity among same-sex couples. There never has been. For example, siblings of the same sex and committed friends--both married to others and unmarried--have been examined, ordained and installed in complete consistency with the standards for officers. It is the manner of life of the individual involved in a committed, same-sex relationship that is somehow qualitatively different than a sibling or friendship that determines eligibility for ordained office.

For the Covenant Network, the language of “committed, same-sex relationships” appears to be an undefined term of art: it signifies something qualitatively different than friendship. It is because that relationship construct is qualitatively different than friendship and is not defined that questions need to be raised about what it means. The Covenant Network cites—with apparent approval—the GA PJC’s ruling, “The Directory of Worship provides warrant for the church to support and celebrate the formation of same sex unions, while not endorsing conjugal practice. Governing bodies may not assume that such unions are sexual in nature.”

Thus, if the union is more than friendship and does not include conjugal practice, it begs the question of exactly what is involved and how it is distinguished from friendship.

It is precisely because the individuals themselves are making some undefined distinction beyond friendship in their relationship to each other that inquiry is appropriate and necessary —and inquiry does not mean an automatic disqualification. Inquiry means … well … asking questions.

Second, the exercise of ordinary discipline dictates against the “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach implicit in the Covenant Network’s argument. That is not an appropriate standard for the church. The Covenant Network states that “Sessions and presbyteries may not discriminate against same sex partners on the basis of ‘hunch, gossip, or stereotype.’” True. However, where the individual raises questions by declaring his/her participation in a same-sex relationship that is more than simply friendship, instead of not asking, the proper process is to ask a question to bring light to the situation. Asking a question is not discrimination; rather, questions are a process of seeking to discern the nature of the relationship. Suppose a married female pastor separated from her husband, moved in with a male college professor from another church, was seen holding hands and cuddling and referred to him as “my partner” in conversation. Would COM have reason to ask some questions about that relationship? Of course it would!

Further, the Covenant network argues that individuals in same-sex partnerships should not be questioned about sexual practice unless heterosexual individuals also are questioned. True. However, instead of not asking questions, the Church should be asking questions. Examinations conducted in the ordinary discipline of the church should not exclude any area of inquiry due to delicacy or propriety. Questions can be tactful but should be asked. We are mutually accountable in our covenant life together: we should be seeking to walk with those struggling with any kind of sin in their lives. To avoid asking questions for fear of eliciting a response that someone has sin in his or her life is to abandon the church’s claim to be the body of Christ.

Underlying the Covenant Network’s approach is a foundational error that God’s rule does not pertain to our sexual practices, and that the standard of sexual fidelity and chastity is an inappropriate concern for the Church. The Covenant Network document means to carve out an area of human life and practice that stands outside the scope and authority of God. The argument is that it is not safe to presume sexual behavior and governing bodies may not ask. It draws a line that, if accepted, says that God is not welcome to rule over our physical being.

Such a position is directly contrary to a life of discipleship as described in Scripture and our Book of Confessions. The Great Commission in Matthew 28 includes “making disciples of all nations… and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you.” There is no area of a disciple’s life that stands outside of God’s sovereignty. The first question of the Heidelberg Catechism is “What is your only comfort, in life and in death?” The answer speaks to God’s total oversight and care for every aspect of our spiritual and physical lives. The response to the question is, “That I belong—body and soul, in life and in death—not to myself but to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ….”

Issues regarding our bodies—including sexual behavior—belong to Jesus Christ and fall squarely within God’s sovereignty over creation. The responsibility for teaching and discipline is given to the church. In other words, the church has been commanded to take on the responsibility of making disciples and teaching all that the Lord has commanded.

Thus, from the purview of God’s sovereignty as expressed in church discipline, sexuality and sexual behavior is directly related to an individual’s personal faith, and cannot be deemed off limits in an examination. The examination required by G-14.0205 shall include asking about personal faith: knowledge of the doctrine, government and discipline contained in the Constitution. Discipline includes accountability for behavior: including honoring God by making clear the significance of membership in the body of Christ; preserving the purity of the church by nourishing the individual within the life of the believing community; and correcting or restraining wrongdoing in order to bring members to repentance and restoration.

This is the concern that our church Constitution places on examining bodies and it is quite opposite the Covenant Network understanding.

The Rev. Robert Davis is executive director of The Presbyterian Forum and Associate Pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Escondido, CA.

Read more articles in this series

Return to Coalition Home Page