|
The 215th General Assembly
has before it two requests that involve the meaning of G-6.0106b of the Book of
Order: the “Statement of Compliance” from Christ Church in Burlington, Vermont,
in which Christ Church sets out its own interpretation of that section; and
Overture 03-12, which asks for an authoritative interpretation according to
constitutional process. G-6.0106b requires that persons serving as ordained
officers, must live in either fidelity in marriage or chastity in
singleness. This paper examines the background of that section of the
constitution and the resources already available to understand the meaning of
the ordination standards; this paper is offered to help resolve the issue.
I. Chronology of the
Development of G-6.0106b
A. The Adoption of the
“Authoritative Interpretation,” known before 1993 as the “Definitive Guidance”
1. 1976--The 188th
General Assembly received a request from the Presbyteries of New York City and
of the Palisades to give “definitive guidance” concerning the eligibility for
ordination as ministers persons who openly acknowledge homosexual orientation
and practice.
The GA (of the United
Presbyterian Church in the USA) established a task force to study and report on
the subject.
2. Jan., 1978--the
task force gave its final report, with a minority report, to the Advisory
Council of Church and Society, which recommended the adoption of the majority
report.
3. May, 1978--the
190th General Assembly sent the task force reports, along with 17 overtures and
21 resolutions on homosexuality from presbyteries (plus a large number of
communications from congregations and individuals) to a committee. That
committee issued a report. After more than 10 hours of debate by the full
assembly, the assembly adopted an official policy statement and recommendations,
plus an unofficial background paper of 47 pages for study. This statement and
recommendations became the “Definitive Guidance.” The Stated Clerk of the 190th
Assembly, William P. Thompson, prefaced the printed copy of the statement with
the declaration: “These are the official positions of the General Assembly of
the United Presbyterian Church concerning homosexuality.” (Page 6 of the 62-page
document “The Church and Homosexuality,” The United Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America, 1978, Office of the General Assembly.)
4. 1979--A
similar interpretive statement was adopted by the Presbyterian Church in the US,
which reunited with the United Presbyterian Church in the USA in 1983 to form
the current PCUSA. (Minutes, PCUS, 1979, Part I, p. 201-210)
5. 1993--the
205th General Assembly of the PCUSA stated that the 1978 “Definitive Guidance”
carried the weight of “authoritative interpretation” and officially adopted it
as such. (Minutes, 1993, p. 322)
B. The Provisions of
the Authoritative Interpretation
NOTE: The text of the
Authoritative Interpretation is located at the end of this document as Appendix
A. The paragraphs have been numbered for easy reference.
1. The policy statement
section sets forth several conclusions about sexuality and sin.
a. “[H]omosexuality is not
God’s wish for humanity....Even where the homosexual orientation has not been
consciously sought or chosen, it is neither a gift from God nor a state nor a
condition like race; it is a result of our living in a fallen world.”
(Paragraph 13)
b. Jesus Christ call us out
of our fallen state into a new life, which “redeems us as sexual beings but is
impossible without repentance.... Though none of us will ever achieve perfect
fulfillment of God’s will, all Christians are responsible to view their sins as
God views them and to strive against them.” (Paragraphs 18, 22)
c. “ In Matt. 19:1-12, Jesus
reaffirms God’s intention for sexual intercourse, enduring marriage between
husband and wife, and affirms godly celibacy for those not entering the marriage
covenant.” (Paragraph 29)
d. “Officers are not free
from repeated expressions of sin. Neither are members and officers free to
adopt a lifestyle of conscious, continuing, and unresisted sin an any area of
their lives. For the church to ordain a self-affirming, practicing homosexual
person to ministry would be to 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....Therefore our present understanding of
God’s will precludes the ordination of persons who do not repent of homosexual
practice.” (Paragraph 36)
2. The policy
statement sets forth its conclusion with respect to ordination with the
following “definitive guidance”:
“That unrepentant
homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination set
forth in Form of Government, Chapter VII, Section 3 (37.03): ‘...It is
indispensable that, besides possessing the necessary gifts and abilities,
natural and acquired, everyone undertaking a particular ministry should have a
sense of inner persuasion, be sound in the faith, live according to godliness,
have the approval of God’s people and the concurring judgment of a lawful
judicatory of the Church.’” (Paragraph 52)
[NOTE: That section of the
former constitution is similar to G-6.0106a of our current constitution.]
C. The Call for a
Constitutional Amendment to Set Ordination Standards
1. Challenges to the
Authoritative Interpretation
The Authoritative
Interpretation’s conclusions with respect to the sinfulness of homosexual
behavior and its disqualification from office of self-affirmed practicing
homosexuals were cited as controlling policy in a number of judicial cases
decided by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission over the next 17
years from 1978 to 1995.
a. 1985
-- The Authoritative Interpretation was challenged, however, even
from its first use in a case (Union Presbyterian Church
of Blasdell, et al. v. Presbytery of Western New York
(Remedial Case 197-9, Minutes, p. 118, 1985). In the Blasdell decision,
the GAPJC ruled that the 190th General Assembly’s interpretation of the
Constitution, as set out in the Definitive Guidance, was determinative for local
churches, and that congregations must abide by it. However, five GAPJC
members dissented, stating that the Guidance had defined a second category of
membership and changed the constitution without using the amendment processes
required by the governing document.
b. 1994--In
1994, a five-member minority of the GAPJC dissented on the same grounds in the
case of Hope Presbyterian Church v. Central Presbyterian Church (Remedial
Case 206-3, Minutes, p. 142).
c. October, 1995--
seven of the 15 members of the GAPJC wrote a concurring opinion in Central
Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Long Island (Remedial Case 208-4, 1996)
that the 1978 Definitive Guidance, the subsequent reaffirmations of it by other
general assemblies, and the judicial decisions based on it were adopted in
violation of the Constitution because they had established ordination standards
without following the necessary process of constitutional amendment.
2. Constitution is
Amended by G-60106b
As a result of these
challenges to the Authoritative Interpretation, a number of presbyteries
overtured General Assembly to amend the Book of Order to incorporate the
substance of the Authoritative Interpretation and thereby remove any ambiguity
as to its force.
a. July, 1996--the
208th General Assembly sent out for presbytery approval the section G-6.0106b
that is now in the Constitution. After a vote of 97 presbyteries in favor and
74 opposed, the amendment became effective in 1997. The amendment was known as
“Amendment B” because of its
order in the list of amendments sent out. The amendment included a preamble
that explains the committee and Assembly’s intent in proposing the
section, and provides help in understanding its meaning. NOTE: The text of
the Preamble is available at the end of this document as Appendix B.
b. 1997--
the 209th General Assembly, sent out an amendment to replace the “fidelity in
marriage and chastity in singleness” language of G-6.0106b with “fidelity and
integrity in marriage or singleness”. The proposal failed, with a vote of 59
yes and 114 no. This was known as the first Amendment A.
c. June, 2001--
the 213th General Assembly sent out an amendment to repeal G-6.0106b, the
Authoritative Interpretation, and all the judicial cases that relied on them.
It also proposed an amendment to G-6.0106a to state the ordaining or installing
governing body had the responsibility to decide the suitability of any candidate
for ordained position. The amendment (also called Amendment A) failed by a vote
of 46 yes and 127 no.
d. Current
Position--The official position of the PCUSA since
1978 that a self-affirmed practicing homosexual may not be ordained or installed
in office has continued to this day to be the law of the church, through the
Authoritative Interpretation, the explicit language in G-6.0106b, and the
judicial cases based on them. The 1997 and 2001 attempts to modify or delete
G-6.0106b failed by increasing margins in presbytery voting.
II. The Meaning of
G-6.0106b
Although many commentators
have opined concerning the interpretation of various words in G-6.0106b, no
judicial case has yet fully explored the meaning of all the specific terms
used.
Therefore, to understand what
the section means, we must rely on standard principles for constructing its
provisions. We begin with the words themselves, other parts of the
constitution, other statements of general assemblies, namely, the Authoritative
Interpretation and the Preamble to Amendment B, and other tools such as a
dictionary. The preferred and proper interpretation is one that best gives
meaning and effect to all the provisions of the Constitution. The GAPJC has
concurred (Londonderry
v. Presbytery of Northern New England, Remedial
Case 213-2, 2000, reported 2002), ruling that no governing
body or judicial commission may declare any properly adopted part of the
constitution invalid, including G-6.0106b.
G-6.0106b. “Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in
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.”
A. The Authorities of
Scripture, Confessions, Book of Order, Authoritative Interpretation, and
Preamble to Amendment B
G-6.0106b rightly recovers
the historic Reformed principle that Christians are to live in obedience to Holy
Scripture as the “only rule of faith and manners” (G-1.0307) and the “only rule
of faith and life” (Westminster Confession, 7.113). It is a false dichotomy to
separate Jesus Christ from Holy Scriptures, “which are received and obeyed as
the word of God written” (Confession of 1967, 9.27), just as we are to trust and
obey “Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture” (Barmen, 8.11).
These contemporary expressions of understanding agree with the historic Reformed
confessional standards--Scots (3.18-3.19), Second Helvetic (5.002-5.004), and
Westminster (6.050, 7.002-7.003).
While G-6.0106b does not
contain any specific definition of terms, it does make Holy Scripture and the
historic confessional standards of the church (Part I of the Constitution--the
Book of Confessions) the authoritative basis of its provisions. In context, it
further elaborates the nature of a manner of life demonstrating the Christian
Gospel, as required of officers in the immediately preceding section,
G-6.0106a. The section first refers to Scripture, and states that officers are
to live “in obedience” to it. Reflecting the second ordination question, the
provision further requires that officers’ lives are also to be “in conformity to
the historic confessional standards of the church” as reliable expositions of
what Scripture teaches us to believe and do. The confessions are often
regarded as being a “lens” through which we view Scripture, since our
consciences as officers are to be “captive to the Word of God as interpreted
in the standards of the church” (G-6.0108b). G-6.0106b goes on to affirm
the standard of “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a
woman or chastity in singleness” as being an integral part of our confessional
understanding, specifically referencing the Book of Order’s understanding
of the nature of marriage.
Thus, the explicit language
of G-6.0106b requires us to use, in combination, the provisions of Holy
Scripture and both parts of the Constitution to properly understand its
provisions. In addition, our polity demands that we look further to the 1993
Authoritative Interpretation and the Preamble to Amendment B.
B. The Meaning of
Specific Words
1. “Fidelity within the
covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001)”
a. W-4.9001 is part of the
second division of the Book of Order, the Directory for Worship. The section
defines marriage both as a civil contract between a man and a woman and as a
covenant lived out in Christian discipleship before God.
b. If we need more
information about “fidelity in marriage,” there are numerous teachings in the
Book of Confessions which uphold:
i. the relationship between
a man and a woman as God’s ordering of the interpersonal life for humankind.
(Confession of 1967, 9.47) The church is to lead people out of sexual
anarchy and confusion.
ii. adultery is forbidden,
and we are to keep pure and holy in marriage (Heidelberg Catechism
4.108-4.109; 4.087; Second Helvetic 5.246-5.247; Westminster Catechism 7.248
and 7.249).
c. Those precepts in the
Westminster Catechism 7.248 and 7.249 have noted references to the Scripture
which teaches these truths.
d. The Authoritative
Interpretation examines Scripture and concludes that sexual intercourse is
intended only for a man and woman in an enduring marriage. (Paragraphs 9, 10,
21, 29, 30)
e. The Stated Clerk of the
PCUSA issued Polity
Reflections Note 19 in 1998. In seeking to define “fidelity in
marriage, the Clerk correctly looks to W-4.9001, but fails to consider the ample
discussion of fidelity in marriage in the confessions, Scripture, or the
Authoritative Interpretation.
2. “chastity in singleness”
a. The Confessions discuss
what a single life entails and also set forth a number of examples of behavior
that are “chaste” or “unchaste:”
i. fornication (unmarried
heterosexual intimacy) and homosexual perversion are forbidden (Heidelberg
4.087);
ii. chastity in thought,
word, and action is required by God in the single life (Heidelberg
4.108-4.109; Westminster Catechism 7.071-7.072)
iii. examples of chastity
in body, mind, and behavior are given (Westminster Catechism 7.248)
iv. fornication, rape,
incest, and sodomy are forbidden as examples of unchaste behavior (Westminster
Catechism 7.249)
b. The teachings in
Westminster Catechisms 7.071, 7.072, 7.248, and 7.249 have noted references to
the Scripture on which they are based.
c. The Authoritative
Interpretation examines Scriptural teaching about sexual behavior outside of
marriage that God proscribes; homosexual behavior is forbidden. (Paragraphs 21,
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
d. The Preamble to Amendment
B states that Scripture, as guided by the confessions, defines homosexual
practice as a sin. (Paragraphs 9, 10, 11)
e. Polity Reflections Note
19 neglects any examination of the confessions, Scripture, or the Authoritative
Interpretation; thus, it erroneously advises that governing bodies are free to
decide what “chaste” and “single” mean.
3. “repent”
a. “Repent” appears often in
our confessions. The word is consistently defined as grieving for, hating, and
turning from sin and then turning toward God. These elements are noted in
Heidelberg 4. 088, 4.089; Second Helvetic 5.093; Westminster 6.081-6.086; and
Westminster Catechism 7.186.
b. The confessional
teaching in Westminster Catechism 7.186 refers to the Scripture that deals with
repentance.
c. The Preamble to Amendment
B states the importance of acknowledging and repenting of sin. (Paragraph 9)
d. In Polity Reflections
Note 19, the Stated Clerk, overlooking the clear and lengthy explanation of
repentance in the confessions and Scripture, declares that “repent” is not
defined and governing bodies will need to decide upon and use a reasonable
definition.
4. “self-acknowledged”
The confessions and Scripture
do not define this term; however, the Authoritative Interpretation describes
circumstances of disclosure. (Paragraph 44) It urges various committees with
authority to examine candidates for ordination to use discretion in making
inquiry into “sexual orientation or practice... where the person involved has
not taken the initiative in declaring his or her sexual orientation.”
(Emphasis added) The statement places no limit on where or when such
declaration occurred.
In the case of
Letourneau et al. v. Presbytery of Twin Cities Area (Remedial Case 205-4,
Minutes, p. 164, 1993), the GAPJC confirmed the principle in Paragraph 44 of the
Authoritative Interpretation, ruling that sexual orientation and practice is
relevant to a candidate’s qualifications for ordination and must be investigated
by an examining body when the candidate has taken the initiative in declaring
his or her sexual orientation. However, rulings in more recent cases (Wier
v. Second Presbyterian Church, Remedial Case
214-5, 2002; and
Presbytery of San Joaquin v. Presbytery of the Redwoods,
Remedial Case 215-8, 2003) have applied an increasingly
stringent standard. Wier requires that “in whatever form it may take,
self-acknowledgment must be plain, palpable, and obvious and details of this
must be alleged in [a] complaint.” San Joaquin further overturns the principle of Paragraph 44 and
Letourneau that self-acknowledgment of homosexual orientation creates an
obligation for further inquiry. Instead, the GAPJC held that self
acknowledgment of homosexual or other orientation by itself is not a proper
basis “for singling out a candidate for additional questioning. Therefore, if a
person does not self-acknowledge a practice that the confessions call
sin, then a governing body has a positive obligation to make further inquiry”
(emphasis added) only if it has specific knowledge of a violation. The Wier
and Letourneau decisions also raise the bar for inquiry and evidence
significantly higher than comparable standards in secular law, e.g. in family
courts dealing with matrimonial disputes.
The GAPJC has not ruled in
any case whether or not a candidate can refuse to answer legitimate questions
from an examining body, despite the ordination vow to be governed by the
church’s polity and abide by its discipline. Church office is undertaken
voluntarily, and a candidate always retains the right to terminate inquiry
he/she considers intrusive by withdrawing the candidacy.
5. “practice”
The Authoritative
Interpretation provides an understanding of this term. It states:
“Officers are not free from
repeated expressions of sin. Neither are members and officers free to adopt a
lifestyle of conscious, continuing, and unresisted sin in any area of
their lives.” (Paragraph 36, emphasis added)
The Preamble to Amendment B,
in paragraph 9, refers to “manner of life,” which indicates a persistent pattern
of behavior.
III. Conclusion
The constitutional and
legislative materials relating to G-6.0106b provide ample, clear, and consistent
interpretation of that section. Such understanding is binding on all officers
who have agreed to the vows to be governed by our church’s polity, as well as
governing bodies, which are united in their mutual relationship.
Appendix I: The Authoritative Interpretation
Appendix II: The Preamble to Amendment B
Other Links:
Polity Reflection #19
Polity
Reflection #43
Polity
Reflection #44: ACTIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RELATING TO HOMOSEXUALITY -
1970-2001 |
