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":
"AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATIONS"

Fallacy: Whatever G 6.0106b means, General Assembly statements preceding its adoption prevent ordained service by persons in same sex relationships.

1. Statements preceding the adoption of G 6.0106b cannot bind sessions or presbyteries because, if they did, they would amount to amendment of our constitutional standards without the required ratification by the presbyteries.
2. G 6.0106b, in changing the Constitution, supersedes earlier interpretations.

• Formal amendment of the Constitution necessarily preempts earlier interpretations of older constitutional language on the same point.
• The marked difference between the relatively flexible language of G 6.0106b and the inflexible/exclusionary language of the older (pre B) statements also demonstrates that the amendment was intended to change the rules.
• If statements preceding the adoption of G 6.0106b were binding, G 6.0106b would never apply to persons in same sex relationships at all (because such persons would be excluded. from office before G 6.0106b was even invoked). In fact, however, the PJCs have consistently applied G 6.0106b (and not the pre B statements) in cases involving gay and lesbian candidates for office.

Critique of the Covenant Network’s Interpretation of
“Authoritative Interpretation”
by James R. Tony

Because the “radical principles” of the PC(USA) state clearly that a larger governing body shall rule a smaller one and decide matters of controversy (G-1.0400), on the basis that the larger governing body is more representative and inclusive than the smaller, the right of a sitting G.A. to issue an authoritative interpretation was added to the Book of Order. The authoritative interpretations of General Assemblies and the decisions of General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commissions (GAPJC) are both means of interpreting the Constitution officially and of binding the governing bodies of the PC(USA) [G-13.0103r, see also Minutes 1993, pp. 76f and 322, # 21.049A]. The formal amendment process may be used to make explicit in the Constitution a particular precedent or interpretation. This is why ordination requires the promise both to be governed by the polity of our church (the written formal Constitution) and to abide by its discipline (the case law and interpretations).

To the next GA (as to several other recent GAs) comes several overtures seeking to adopt a new Authoritative Interpretation to declare that all of the authoritative interpretations on ordinations standards of the past have no further force or effect. Adoption of that statement as an “Authoritative Interpretation” could be done by only a single majority vote at General Assembly.

What would the proposal to delete the Authoritative Interpretations that relate to G-6.0106b do to change ordination standards? If a General Assembly took that action, whether or not it removed G-6.0106b from the Book of Order, the effect would erase the record of the church’s official memory of Scripture and the Constitution on the subject of homosexual morality. It appears simple because a single General Assembly (G.A.) could make that decision by itself since General Assemblies have the power to issue or change Authoritative Interpretations.

However, we must ask what actually prohibits the PC (USA) from ordaining practicing homosexual persons. Is it the Authoritative Interpretation and all the legal stuff in the Book of Order? Yes it is, because Authoritative Interpretation truly and accurately makes plain in written Constitutional law what Presbyterians have believed and practiced as long as there has been a church. We cannot legitimize same-sex behavior for the fundamental reason that the Church’s conscience is held captive by the very Word of God, revealed in Scripture. That Word to us about God’s will and our behavior simply is not subject to modification by the pretense that it is not true. The current Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0106b can never be wisely or honestly removed unless we are willing to give up our charter and calling in Scripture. “For the church to ordain a self affirming, practicing homosexual person to ministry would be an act in contradiction to its charter and calling in Scripture, setting in motion both within the church and society serious contradictions to the will of Christ.”

To the extent that the Constitutional standards of the PC (USA) honestly and faithfully interpret and apply Scripture, they are authoritative. To the extent that the standards depart from the Word, they require reforming – according to the Word of God and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As far as the PC (USA) is concerned the case has yet to be made in a way that the Christian community can accept that homosexual practice or sexual relations outside of marriage accord with biblical standards.

One argument made for the past three decades for removing the Authoritative Interpretation is that the Definitive Guidance/Authoritative Interpretation amounts to amendment of the Constitution without the process of presbytery ratification. This claim is an attempt to confuse interpretation of the Constitution with the Constitution itself. Historical context is helpful to understanding the error of this claim. In 1976 two presbyteries asked the G.A. to tell them whether the Constitution (as it stood then) permitted the ordination of self-affirming, practicing homosexuals. The outcome of extended and careful deliberation by that G.A. was the “Definitive Guidance” of 1978. It said, in effect, that the Constitution, based as it is in Scripture and interpreted by our Confessions, had not permitted and does not now permit the ordination of self-affirming practicing homosexuals. Indeed, the Constitution never had granted such permission.

Contrary to the claims sometimes made since that time, the whole 1978 G.A. declared that the Constitution at that time already prohibited the ordination of unrepentant homosexually active persons. This “Definitive Guidance” did not change or amend the Constitution; therefore, there was no need for ratification as if this were an amendment. And the recognition of the fact that there was not a need for sending an amendment to the presbyteries is the historical evidence that this was emphatically NOT a change in our Constitutional understanding of this matter! Never in the history of our Church or of the church apostolic and catholic has sexual practice outside of marriage been a matter of indifference, particularly by persons ordained or seeking to be ordained.

On the contrary, a change in the Constitution would have been required if the General Assembly had wanted to permit the ordination of unrepentant sexually active homosexuals. Scripture does not hold, and the Christian Church has never held, that homosexual behavior or any sexual intercourse outside of the marriage of a man and woman is morally acceptable.

Thus, the situation that now presents itself as a proposed Authoritative Interpretation in Recommendation 5 of the Report of the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church, is especially problematical. It purports, under the provision for interpreting the Constitution, to permit local governing bodies to make optional (upon majority vote or a particular governing body) what our Constitution mandates. So the provision for interpreting has now been proposed as a stratagem for de facto amendment or abrogation of a mandated requirement.

In the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, “definitive guidance” was attacked as if it were mere “advice.” The G.A. responded in 1993 by adopting the essential point of the “Definitive Guidance” as an “Authoritative Interpretation.” That was to make abundantly clear that “definitive guidance” could not be ignored because it was the official interpretation of what had always been our Constitution.

Some have claimed that as long as G-6.0106b is in the Constitution, these authoritative interpretations are not needed. This is clearly contrary to established Presbyterian jurisprudence. An amendment to the Constitution preempts earlier interpretations only to the extent it explicitly contradicts the earlier interpretations. Otherwise, the principle of stare decisis holds. That is, the constitutional provisions in place stay in place. Consider the many changes adopted to the Book of Order each year. Most of them are simply refinements or clarifications of process that is already encoded in the Book of Order. If each amendment completely voided all of the legal history and precedents, we would have to start from scratch each time a section of the Book of Order is applied to a situation. With no precedents in court or G.A. decisions on the Constitution’s application, everyone would be free to re-imagine the meaning of each provision.

Constitutional amendments may modify, clarify, intensify, or merely codify previously unwritten or written policies or practices. Of course, an amendment may also reverse or pre-empt previous practices, but this is rare.

Which of the above does G-6.0106b do? G-6.0106b was adopted in part because in 1995 a significant minority of the GAPJC at that time threatened that, without explicit language in the Book of Order, they would no longer give constitutional force to the precedents set by both the G.A., Authoritative Interpretation and the GAPJC, not to mention Scripture and the Confessions (Central, Huntington, NY v. Presbytery of Long Island, 208-4). So the whole Church, acting in General Assembly (1996) and presbytery votes, adopted G-6.0106b in order to make abundantly clear what our standards have always been by encoding them explicitly into the Book of Order.

In fact G-6.0106b does not change G-6.0106a or alter any other part of the Constitution or the Authoritative Interpretation. The Stated Clerk of the G.A. (Advisory Opinion 8) is clear about that: G-6.0106b means that sexually active homosexuals are not to be ordained or installed into church office. That’s exactly what the Definitive Guidance and the Authoritative Interpretation said, but because of the threats of open defiance, by necessity it was written into the Constitution.

Contrary to the history of the relationship between G-6.0106b and Authoritative Interpretation, some, including the writers of “Interpreting G-6.0106b” (Covenant Network paper by Moffett, Nave, and Oddleifson), claim that G-6.0106b is elastic, where the Authoritative Interpretations are rigid. They write: “The marked difference between the relatively flexible language of G 6.0106b and the inflexible/exclusionary language of the older (pre B) statements also demonstrates that the amendment was intended to change the rules.”

Even a cursory review of the legislative history that led to the inclusion of G-6.0106b shows this claim is unfounded in fact. The legislative history demonstrates clear continuity, not discontinuity. G-6.0106b is broader in reach than the Authoritative Interpretations for a simple reason. The Authoritative Interpretations were issued in response to the limited question of ordination of practicing homosexual persons. As the legislative history convincingly shows, G-6.0106b was written as constitutional law, codifying what the church had always understood: the totality of the “manner of life” of officers had to conform to Scriptural norms. Because of previous challenges, it spoke explicitly to sexual conduct, putting all activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual, on a single, consistent footing – the standard taught by Scripture. G-6.0106b is thus connected seamlessly with the Authoritative Interpretations.

One would think the Covenant Network version (the proposed Amendments A of 1997 & 2001) had actually replaced the one now contained in the Constitution. Remember their arguments at the time: They insisted that the “fidelity and chastity” language be removed because they were rigid and inflexible standards. They sought to substitute “fidelity and integrity.” Now they have reversed themselves: they tell us that “fidelity and chastity” are flexible. If G-6.0106b is so flexible and accommodating to same-sex behavior, why all this fuss? Why do they keep roiling the church for change in the language while at the same time working to give the language their own interpretation?

In point of fact, G6b is built on the foundation of Scripture, Confessions, and the Authoritative Interpretations, so as to leave no doubt that it is in concert with those standards and not in contrast to them. The language as it was adopted is not a departure from the historic position of the whole Christian Church and the Presbyterian part of the Church, but an application of that moral standard specifically to the situation of ordination in the PC(USA).

That leads to the Covenant Network’s final point about the Authoritative Interpretation: They say, “If statements preceding the adoption of G 6.0106b were binding, G 6.0106b would never apply to persons in same sex relationships at all (because such persons would be excluded from office before G 6.0106b was even invoked). In fact, however, the PJCs have consistently applied G 6.0106b (and not the pre B statements) in cases involving gay and lesbian candidates for office.”

The Covenant Network authors want you to believe that G-6.0106b is the only provision in the Constitution that “seems” to govern the eligibility of “persons in same-sex relationships.” However, all the standards of the PC(USA) apply to all members and may be the basis of discipline. The Rules of Discipline state clearly, “An offense is any act or omission by a member or officer of the church that is contrary to the Scripture or the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” (D-2.0203b)

So we look to Scripture for our standard. And how do we interpret that Scripture? Presbyterians look to our Confessions and then come up with constitutional law and legislative interpretation that further clarifies our belief and intent. The Authoritative Interpretation is the finished product of that very Presbyterian process, as is G-6.0106b, which flows from the careful work done in the Authoritative Interpretation. Both the Authoritative Interpretation and G-6.0106b direct explicit attention to the fact that fidelity and chastity are already and have always been the standards of the church.

The Word of God is the primary standard, and G-6.0106b rightly interprets and applies that Word. G-6.0106b merely seeks to prevent the open scandal that threatens the church all the more today because of perverse interpretations. That scandal is that the church would ordain those who not only disagree with but also openly demonstrate disregard for the revealed standard of God. Romans 1 could hardly more clearly illuminate our current predicament.

James R. Tony is pastor of Palos Park Presbyterian Community Church in Chicago Presbytery. He is a member of the board of directors of the Presbyterian Coalition.

Read more articles in this series

Return to Coalition Home Page