by Tricia Dykers Koenig

Amendment 10-A: Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

The current text of G-6.0106b is out of sync with Presbyterian and Reformed theology and polity.  Amendment 10-A corrects those errors.

“A brief review of the discussions which have troubled our Church in the past throws a revealing light upon the path which we are now treading.  Controversy within the Presbyterian Church is not a new thing.  We have passed this way before.

“1.    The first of these controversies within the American Presbyterian Church ended with the acceptance of the Adopting Act in 1729.  The first Presbytery, formed in 1706, and the first Synod, organized in 1716, fell heir to the discussions over subscription to the Confession of Faith which distressed the churches in the motherland and divided the Irish Church.  Before 1729 the American Presbyterian Church was divided in its sentiment regarding subscription to the Confession of Faith.  Jonathan Dickinson, the first President of Princeton, and one of the ablest men in the Church, opposed it.  He said, “I have a higher opinion of the Assembly’s Confession than of any other book of the kind existent in the world, yet I don’t think it’s perfect.  I know it to be the dictates of fallible men, and I know of no law, either of religion or reason, that obliges me to subscribe to it.”  The matter was keenly debated and in the end a compromise was effected.  The Adopting Act was worded so as to be acceptable to everyone, and laid the basis of a creedal church.  The Adopting Act reads:

“‘Although the Synod do not claim or pretend to any authority of imposing our faith upon other men’s consciences, but do profess our just dissatisfaction with an abhorrence of such impositions, and do utterly disclaim all legislative power and authority in the Church, being willing to receive one another as Christ has received us to the glory of God, and admit to fellowship in sacred ordinances all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at last admit to the Kingdom of heaven, yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that the faith once delivered to the saints be kept pure and uncorrupt among us, and so handed down to our posterity.  And do therefore agree that all the ministers of this Synod, or that shall hereafter be admitted into this Synod, shall declare their agreement in and approbation of the Confession of Faith, with the Larger, and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as being, in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine, and do also adopt the said Confession and Catechisms as the confession of our faith.  And we do also agree, that all the Presbyteries within our bounds shall always take care not to admit any candidate for the ministry into the exercise of the sacred function unless he declares his agreement in opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession, either by subscribing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by a verbal declaration of their assent thereto, as such minister or candidate shall think best.  And in case any minister of this Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall at the time of his making said declaration declare his sentiments to the Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial communion, if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship or government.  But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such ministers or candidates erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare them uncapable of communion with them.  And the Synod do solemnly agree that none of us will traduce or use any opprobrious term of those that differ from us in these extra-essential and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them with the same friendship, kindness and brotherly love, as if they had not differed from us in such sentiments.’

“The phrase “essential and necessary articles,” thrice repeated, contains the germ of differences that still vex the Church.  When the Adopting Act was enacted the particular doctrine objected to was the submission of the Church to the State; those submitting to the Act objected to including this doctrine as one of the essential and necessary articles.  The principle incorporated in the Act, however, has a wider application.”   Report of the Special [Swearingen] Commission of 1925

Amendment 10-A was drafted in reliance upon this principle, which is what Presbyterians always eventually return to in ordination disputes, once they wake up to the fact that a small majority imposing its will on a large minority is a recipe for continual conflict and can never be sustained: we have national standards, and they have to be applied to individual candidates with respect to their freedom of conscience, taking into account the governing body’s understanding of what is “essential.”

“… ordained officers differ from other members in function only.” G-6.0102

Breaking with the Reformed tradition, G-6.0106b treats officers as a superior class, distinct from other members of the Body of Christ. 10-A calls officers to high standards but acknowledges that they, like all Christians, are on a journey of discipleship, seeking to be faithful in submitting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but always falling short.

“Confessions and declarations are subordinate standards in the church, subject to the authority of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, as the Scriptures bear witness to him. No one type of confession is exclusively valid, no one statement is irreformable. Obedience to Jesus Christ alone identifies the one universal church and supplies the continuity of its tradition. This obedience is the ground of the church’s duty and freedom to reform itself in life and doctrine as new occasions, in God’s providence, may demand.” Confession of 1967, 9.03

G-6.0106b substitutes Scripture for Jesus Christ, who alone is the source of the church’s peace, unity, purity, and salvation, and fails even to mention him. 10-A grounds ordination standards firmly in the Lordship of Christ.

“All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.” Westminster Confession of Faith, 6.175

G-6.0106b establishes the confessions as rules of faith and practice in the matter of that which is to be considered sinful, leaving no allowance for error, changing understandings, or freedom of conscience in interpretation of Scripture. 10-A upholds the importance of our confessions but returns them to their proper role as guide.

“But we hold that interpretation of the Scripture to be orthodox and genuine which is gleaned from the Scriptures themselves (from the nature of the language in which they were written, likewise according to the circumstances in which they were set down, and expounded in the light of like and unlike passages and of many and clearer passages) and which agree with the rule of faith and love, and contribute much to the glory of God and man’s salvation.” Second Helvetic Confession, 5.010

“The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God’s work of reconciliation in Christ. The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current. The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical understanding. As God has spoken his word in diverse cultural situations, the church is confident that he will continue to speak through the Scriptures in a changing world and in every form of human culture.” Confession of 1967, 9.29

“Yet the church, in obedience to Jesus Christ, is open to the reform of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church affirms ‘Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda,’ that is, ‘The church reformed, always reforming,’ according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit.” G-2.0200

“Thus, the creeds and confessions of this church reflect a particular stance within the history of God’s people. They are the result of prayer, thought, and experience within a living tradition.” G-2.0500

G-6.0106b calcifies not only the Scripture, but also the confessions, ignoring our call to understand and apply them in context and to discern that interpretation which best agrees with the rule of faith and love.

Numerous General Assemblies have declined overtures which would have defined “the essential tenets of the Reformed faith,” and yet G-6.0106b purports to make certain portions of the confessions – those that mention sin – authoritative in a way that the confessions themselves warn against. It changes our relationship to the confessions by requiring that officers be in conformity to them – an impossibility, since in some details the confessions are not even in conformity with each other – rather than being instructed and guided by them.

“The new life takes place in a community in which men know that God loves and accepts them in spite of what they are. They therefore accept themselves and love others, knowing that no man has any ground on which to stand except God’s grace.
“The new life does not release a man from conflict with unbelief, pride, lust, fear. He still has to struggle with disheartening difficulties and problems. Nevertheless, as he matures in faith and faithfulness in his life with Christ, he lives in freedom and good cheer, bearing witness on good days and evil days, confident that the new life is pleasing to God and helpful to others.” Confession of 1967, 9.22-23

God has given us responsibility for moral and ethical decision-making as we strive to bear witness to the reconciling work of Christ in the world. G-6.0106b trivializes the Christian calling by suggesting that faithfulness is dependent on a check-list of behaviors to avoid.

“What does the seventh commandment teach us? That all unchastity is to be condemned by God, and that we should therefore detest it from the heart, and live chaste and disciplined lives, whether in holy wedlock or in single life.” Heidelberg Catechism, 4.108

Historically and confessionally, chastity is a quality to be exhibited in all aspects of life and relationship; G-6.0106b reverses that intent, emphasizing form over substance and implying that fidelity and chastity are either/or rather than both/and.

Over a decade later, the terms fidelity, chastity, and singleness have still not been defined. Are persons in committed relationships considered single simply because they do not have a marriage license? What about same-gender couples who are legally married? One might assume that fidelity and chastity are used in reference to sexual expression, but it is not clear what actions would be deemed to violate the requirement. G-6.0106b devalues marriage by treating it primarily as a “license for sex.”

“We teach that baptism should not be administered in the Church by women or midwives. For Paul deprived women of ecclesiastical duties, and baptism has to do with these.” Second Helvetic Confession, 5.191

“The same Spirit… calls women and men to all ministries of the Church.” Brief Statement of Faith, 10.4

G-6.0106b raises legalism to a new level, and has enshrined in the Book of Order a literalism not of Scripture only, but also of the Book of Confessions – despite the fact that the confessions themselves warn against such treatment. The PC(USA) has rejected subscriptionism, as evidenced by its adoption of a Book of Confessions instead of one document only. As is true of the Scripture, the Confessions come to us from different periods in the church’s history and are sometimes contradictory in their details, such that “conformity” is impossible.

“The sins forbidden in the Second Commandment are … the making any representation of God, of all, or of any of the three Persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever…” Larger Catechism, 7.219; on the sinfulness of images of God, see also 4.096-098, 5.020-022, 7.051

There are hundreds of practice[s] which the confessions call sin, making G-6.0106b far too broad to be applied with honesty and equity, and has made hypocrites of all who claim to uphold it.

“We also confess that sins are not equal; although they arise from the same fountain of corruption and unbelief, some are more serious than others.” Second Helvetic Confession, 5.039

Standards are urgently needed – standards that will be taken seriously, not that invite being ignored or scoffed at. It is simply not possible to treat all sins equally. G-6.0106b makes what should be spiritual issues, to be dealt with pastorally and personally, into ecclesiastical inquiries and/or judicial cases.

“Q. 149. Is any man able perfectly to keep the Commandments of God? A. No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the Commandments of God; but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed.” Larger Catechism, 7.259

In G-6.0106b the confessions have become no longer standards toward which to aspire, but requirements to meet “or else” – attaining the goal of perfection becomes a prerequisite for office, at least as the paragraph is written, though of course it has not enforced in that way, which undermines respect for the Book of Order. The church must maintain reasonable standards which are applied equally to all and determined in a way that respects freedom of conscience in interpretation of Scripture.

“The decision as to whether a person has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made initially by the individual concerned but ultimately becomes the responsibility of the governing body in which he or she serves.” G- 6.0108

Sessions and presbyteries can be trusted to make the decisions for which they are held accountable, and should be allowed to do so without the impossible burden of considering each and every practice which the confessions call sin as essential, or the hypocrisy of ignoring this sentence.

“We confess and acknowledge that the law of God is most just, equal, holy, and perfect, commanding those things which, when perfectly done, can give life and bring man to eternal felicity; but our nature is so corrupt, weak, and imperfect, that we are never able perfectly to fulfill the works of the law. Even after we are reborn, if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth of God is not in us. It is therefore essential for us to lay hold on Christ Jesus, in his righteousness and his atonement, since he is the end and consummation of the Law and since it is by him that we are set at liberty so that the curse of God may not fall upon us, even though we do not fulfill the Law in all points. For as God the Father beholds us in the body of his Son Christ Jesus, he accepts our imperfect obedience as if it were perfect, and covers our works, which are defiled with many stains, with the righteousness of his Son. We do not mean that we are so set at liberty that we owe no obedience to the Law – for we have already acknowledged its place – but we affirm that no man on earth, with the sole exception of Christ Jesus, has given, gives, or shall give in action that obedience to the Law which the Law requires. When we have done all things we must fall down and unfeignedly confess that we are unprofitable servants. Therefore, whoever boasts of the merits of his own works or puts his trust in works of supererogation, boasts of what does not exist, and puts his trust in damnable idolatry.” Scots Confession, 3.15

Anyone who believes him or herself to be qualified for ordination/ installation under G-6.0106b is indeed disqualified – for the sin of trusting in works rather than grace. Those endeavoring to require perfection of others are opening themselves to the grave temptation of judgmentalism, condemned by Jesus Christ (e.g. Matthew 7:1-5), the Apostle Paul (e.g. Romans 14:1-12), and the confessions (e.g. 9.13). 10-A acknowledges that officers are called to high standards, but realistically.

“Q. 60. How are you righteous before God? A. Only by true faith in Jesus Christ… “Q. 62. But why cannot our good works be our righteousness before God, or at least a part of it? A. Because the righteousness which can stand before the judgment of God must be absolutely perfect and wholly in conformity with the divine Law. But even our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.” Heidelberg Catechism, 4.060, 4.062

The responsibility of every Christian is to strive to follow Jesus Christ in faith and reliance upon grace, not to reach for unattainable perfection and so delude him or herself that s/he has earned salvation. 10-A, while requiring rigorous examination, recognizes this journey without suggesting that anyone can reach perfect repentance in all aspects of life.

“Q.113. What is required in the tenth commandment?
“A. That there should never enter our heart even the least indication or thought contrary to any commandment of God, but that we should always hate sin with our whole heart and find satisfaction and joy in all righteousness.” Heidelberg Catechism, 4.113

“But we rebel against God; we hide from our Creator.” Brief Statement of Faith, 10.3, line 33

Human sin is far deeper than self-acknowledged practice; indeed, self-deception, dishonesty, and hiding from God are grave aspects of our alienation from God. The specification “self-acknowledged” is an encouragement of dishonesty, and implies that sins which are not recognized or admitted are somehow less serious.

“Repentance unto life is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Word of God, whereby out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, and upon the apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, he so grieves for, and hates his sins, as that he turns from them all to God, purposing and endeavoring constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new obedience.” Larger Catechism, 7.186

According to this definition, one cannot repent of a practice one does not consider to be wrong. A candidate might be willing to submit to the discipline of the church and give up a particular practice, yet s/he would still have not repented if his/her conscience was not persuaded that the practice is indeed sinful. Does this constitute refusing to repent? What has happened to freedom of conscience?

“Congregations, individuals, or groups of Christians who exclude, dominate, or patronize their fellowmen, however subtly, resist the Spirit of God and bring contempt on the faith which they profess.” Confession of 1967, 9.44

G-6.0106b upholds an ideal of “purity” that, although it might be inadvertent, nevertheless has the effect of excluding, dominating, and patronizing those who are judged not to measure up. Jesus Christ consistently opted for compassion over such “purity.”

“The power that Jesus Christ has vested in his church, a power manifested in the exercise of church discipline, is one for building up the body of Christ, not for destroying it, for redeeming, not for punishing. It should be exercised as a dispensation of mercy and not of wrath so that the great end of the church may be achieved, that all children of God may be presented faultless in the day of Christ.” Preamble, The Rules of Discipline

“The church in its witness to the uniqueness of the Christian faith is called to mission and must be responsive to diversity in both the church and the world. Thus the fellowship of Christians as it gathers for worship and orders its corporate life will display a rich variety of form, practice, language, program, nurture, and service to suit culture and need.
“Our unity in Christ enables and requires the church to be open to all persons and to the varieties of talents and gifts of God’s people…” G-4.0401, 4.0402

“It is necessary to the integrity and health of the church that the persons who serve in it as officers shall adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in the Book of Confessions and the Form of Government. So far as may be possible without serious departure from these standards, without infringing on the rights and views of others, and without obstructing the constitutional governance of the church, freedom of conscience with respect to the interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained.” G-6.0108

The unity of the church is in Christ, not in a particular interpretation of Scripture or confessions, nor in uniform practice. In 1996 it was hoped that G-6.0106b would “settle the issue” of the ordination of lesbian and gay persons so that “the whole thing will go away.” However, it is clear from the more than a decade of continual strife that the church is far from reaching consensus in this matter. Those Presbyterians whose consciences are persuaded that qualified gay men and lesbians should be considered for ordained office did not leave the church when G-6.0106b became part of the Book of Order, nor will they be silent until it is removed. Historically, insistence upon uniformity is inherently divisive; G-6.0106b, which heavy-handedly imposes a single exclusive view on everyone, has heightened rather than ended our conflict, exacerbated the brokenness of our community rather than healed it. The Presbyterian Church has been at its best when it has been willing to live with diverse interpretations of Scripture and the Constitution.

Margaret J. Thomas

“Tell us Lord, what has happened to us? Where did we go astray?”

These words haunted the 1993 Faith and Order gathering in Santiago de Compostela. An Orthodox priest ended each petition confessing the slander, persecution, schisms and warfare that have marked the ways Christians have treated one another over the millenniums of our existence with “Tell us Lord, what has happened to us?” And the people responded: “Where did we go astray?” It was a telling indictment of our failings as Christians.

After nearly a generation of conflict over ordination standards, is it not time to do the same – to step back and look at what we have done to one another?

The 2006 General Assembly called us to remember our history: that the Presbyterian Church at its best has worked its way through profound social and theological disagreements by exercising “mutual forbearance” when divided over matters subsidiary to the affirmation that “Jesus is Lord.” The subsequent two Assemblies have done the same. Is it not time to cease endless efforts to impose a consensus on one another, when we have always been called to honor the discernment of ordaining bodies regarding individual candidates within the bounds of our theology and polity – all of it, not just a piece of it? Why did we abandon this obligation of mutual forbearance as Presbyterians to one another in Christ? Is it not time to end a warfare that has diverted us from proclaiming the gospel to all who would love God?

“Where did we go astray?” As someone who has been involved with the ecclesiastical life of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its predecessor denominations for more than 45 years, let me offer a few personal observations for those who were not there at the pivotal points.

In 1976 two presbyteries (New York City and Palisades) sought the advice of the broader church (UPC) regarding “the ordination of persons who may be otherwise well qualified but who affirm their own homosexual identity and practice.” They didn’t have to do that; but like Paul’s proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles, they knew that Peter and the apostles in Jerusalem might have some concerns.

After two years of study a special committee of the General Assembly affirmed the possibility that God may indeed be calling such persons to leadership in the church. The 1978 General Assembly disagreed. (It is well documented that presbytery after presbytery sought to bind the conscience of its commissioners by instructing them on how to vote on the recommendations.) Unlike Peter, we were unwilling to allow the good news of the gospel’s radical inclusion of all who love God to define our lives as Presbyterians. That Assembly used a phrase that did not exist in the Constitution – “definitive guidance.” (In fact, a clear statement of the authority of the General Assembly to offer “authoritative interpretation” did not appear in our Constitution until 1987.)

In 1979 the PCUS adopted a similar statement. Yet neither Assembly was willing to close the discussion. Both passed a series of recommendations calling for further study and dialogue among those who disagreed with those positions. Many Assemblies since have done the same.

It wasn’t until 1985 – following Reunion – that the “definitive guidance” became binding on the conscience of all Presbyterians, when the PJC forbade congregations and presbyteries from ordaining “any self-affirming practicing and unrepentant homosexual as elder, deacon, or minister of the Word.” A minority noted that the definitive guidance was in conflict with other provisions of the Constitution and therefore could not serve as a trump card.

When the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church report of 2006, echoing that minority opinion, reminded us that ordaining bodies are to apply all of the standards of the church to individual candidates and to exercise mutual forbearance with one another in all matters nonessential in faith, practice and governance, they returned us to the standards set by the Jerusalem church – standards affirmed in the 1729 Adopting Act of the Presbyterian Church in the New World when conflicts arose among immigrants from differing Reformed communities.

Tell us Lord, what has happened to us? Where did we go astray? Warfare began in 1993 when the PJC applied the trump card to Jane Spahr and Lisa Larges. Following years of conflicting overtures calling for inclusion and exclusion, a highly politicized General Assembly in 1996 initiated what is now G-6.0106b, a provision with which the church has not been able to live.

Make no mistake about it: this provision is contrary to the historic principles of Presbyterian governance and hypocritical in its intent and application. It requires the impossible standard of works righteousness and perfect obedience to Scripture and our Confessions (“refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin” – see Westminster 7.209 – 7.258 as examples of this impossibility). Yet it substitutes an interpretation of clear confessional language so as not to offend some “unrepentant sinners”; for example, care was taken to specify “marriage between a man and a woman” to allow for divorced officers, when Westminster (6.131) clearly states “one man and one woman.”

Furthermore, the existence of this provision has enabled attempts in judicial case after judicial case to equate “chastity” with “celibacy,” when Assembly after Assembly has refused to do so. Westminster itself (7.248) calls for chastity within the bounds of marriage, and Heidelberg (4.108) calls for “chaste and disciplined lives, whether in holy wedlock or in single life.” Westminster further warns us against “entangling vows of single life” (7.249). Where did we go astray?

The Adopting Act standards were reaffirmed in 1758, 1870, and 1927 to resolve previous ruptures over our ordination standards. In each case, the church struggled for a period with the perception that a point of disagreement in the church was so important that the church’s historic law and practice of forbearance must be overthrown. In each case, however, this sense of crisis was resolved through a reaffirmation of mutual forbearance in cases of conscience. Thus, we have been drawn back to our historic Presbyterian identity many times in our history through gracious and redemptive processes of reformation – for example, when we were able to acknowledge our error regarding the suitability for ordained office of those with an African heritage, women, and divorced persons. Today by God’s grace we are called to forbearance once again as God’s Spirit has led many of us to recognize homosexual persons as brothers and sisters in Christ and full members of the body of Christ.

Tell us Lord, what has happened to us? Lead us to repentance for the ways we have treated one another over the past generation.

G-6.0106b must be stricken from our Constitution so that our historic principles of being Presbyterian may again be honored – where respect for the individual’s biblically formed conscience is tested by those governing bodies who know the candidates for ordained office best, and the broader church exercises mutual forbearance. Beginning with Peter and Paul, our ancestors in the faith founds ways to maintain the bounds of unity. Can we not do the same?

Amendment 10-A, now before the presbyteries, offers a way forward.

The first sentence of the proposed replacement sets forth the purpose of ordination standards in the church:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000).

Standards are not designed to be arbitrary or punitive – they are undertaken voluntarily and joyfully in submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. This reaffirms that there is not a “right” to ordained service in our polity.

Accordingly, the standards do not simply relate to one area of life, such as sexuality, but “in all aspects of life.” The model for these standards is Jesus Christ, who alone is Head of the Church. While all of G-1.0000 is relevant to understanding the nature of ordination standards, of particular importance is G-1.0000c, which reads,

Christ gives to his Church its faith and life, its unity and mission, its officers and ordinances. Insofar as Christ’s will for the Church is set forth in Scripture, it is to be obeyed. In the worship and service of God and the government of the church, matters are to be ordered according to the Word by reason and sound judgment, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The application of standards to particular candidates must therefore be consistent with this ethic. Candidates should be examined “according to the Word by reason and sound judgment, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”

The balance of the provision puts forth specifics regarding the examination.

The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office.

This sentence reflects the “New Side/New School” traditions of ordination standards inherited from the English Puritan stream of American Presbyterianism. It focuses on call (both the candidate’s sense of call and the church’s affirmation of that call), gifts, preparation, and “suitability for the responsibilities of office.” This last dimension will undoubtedly create some anxiety in candidates. The criteria for determination of “suitability” will undoubtedly reflect the local judgment of particular governing bodies. However, the question of “suitability” is related to “the responsibilities of office.” Matters such as gender or race would be excluded from consideration as these have been specifically addressed in confessional documents of the church. A candidate’s sexual behavior (but not orientation) could be a factor considered in determining a particular candidate’s “suitability.” Since the examining body would be required to examine “each candidate’s” suitability, it would not be permissible for a governing body to bar a class of people. But the candidate’s behavior would need to be examined in the larger context of the person’s gifts, calling, and preparation. Matters related to the conscience of a candidate would be considered as they are now, since these relate to G-6.0108, not G-6.0106. Departures from constitutional provisions (i.e., “scruples”) could be declared, weighed, and granted if a presbytery determined it did not affect an essential tenet of the Reformed faith.

The provision continues by affirming:

The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003).

This sentence incorporates the historic “Old Side/Old School” concerns regarding ordination standards inherited from the Scots-Irish stream of American Presbyterianism. The examination is not merely a subjective evaluation of the candidate’s call, or merely the candidate’s verbal assent to standards. The examining body must be satisfied of the candidate’s “ability and commitment” to fulfill the requirements expressed in all the constitutional questions for office. The questions cover a wide range of concerns: theological orthodoxy; authority of Scripture and the confessions; acceptance of our polity; commitment to collegiality; furtherance of the peace, unity, and purity of the church; and demonstration of the love and justice of Christ. This is a significant shift from the amendment approved by the previous General Assembly that was defeated by the presbyteries.
By taking a both/and approach to the two main historic streams of American Presbyterianism, Amendment 10-A reflects the position articulated in the Adopting Act of 1729 and reaffirmed whenever the church has encountered division on ordination standards (1758, 1870, 1927). For this reason, persons whose theology of ordination is exclusively in one tradition or the other may find the amendment not fully satisfactory. A view to history and our past attempts to resolve the polarity in our tradition shows the wisdom of the middle-way approach taken by the Adopting Act and its subsequent affirmations.

Finally, the provision concludes by adding:

Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

This sentence makes explicit the reliance on Scripture and the confessions mentioned in G-1.0100c, while also indicating that standards shall be applied individually in the consideration of candidates. This is a précis of the Adopting Act – objective criteria established by Scripture and the confessions, applied pastorally and in the full context of a candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for office. It strikes the time-tested balance between universal standards and individual call and character that has been the touchstone of American Presbyterianism.

It is time to end our warfare, to reaffirm our historic ability to honor the conscience of others through mutual forbearance in matters non-essential, and once again to devote all our resources, energy, intelligence, imagination, and love to proclaiming the gospel of God’s radical and redeeming love to a broken, lonely and hurting world.

The Rev. Margaret J. Thomas, Minneapolis, Minnesota, now honorably retired, was the Deputy Executive Director of the UPC/GAMC and executive of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies. While serving as executive of the Minnesota Council of Churches she became a member and moderator of both the GA Permanent Judicial Commission and the Advisory Committee on the Constitution.

Dr. Mark Achtemeier

I believe the presbyteries should approve Amendment 10-A, the proposed replacement for Book of Order section G-6.0106b, which since 1996 has been used to discourage gay and lesbian believers from being considered for ordination.

Amendment 10-A
Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

This Amendment is worth supporting no matter which side of the ordination debate we are on.  This doesn’t have to be a liberal/conservative issue.  It doesn’t have to be a debate about our sexuality policy.  Amendment 10-A simply makes good sense, and it will be beneficial for the whole church.

Let me highlight three reasons why this is the case.  First, 10-A will bring peace to our presbyteries by halting the endless succession of battles over proposed amendments to the Constitution.  Second, the Amendment will remove divisive ambiguity from the Book of Order, sparing our church huge amounts of costly litigation in the church courts.  And third, Amendment A will help us become the kind of faithful church where divisive issues can be handled more graciously and productively than we have seen in the recent past.  Let me speak to each of these points in turn.

Amendment A will bring peace to the presbyteries

This year marks the fifth time since 1996 that the Assembly has asked the presbyteries to vote on the sexuality policy contained in section G-6.0106b of our Book of Order.  The 2008 General Assembly sent a similar amendment around to the presbyteries, where it was defeated by narrow margins.  And now we are considering Amendment 10-A, which was sent out by the 219^th General Assembly this past June.

The sentiment I encounter most often in response to these events is a weary frustration. “Why do we have to keep voting on this issue year after year?” people ask. “Why don’t our votes decide anything?” “Why can’t we just settle the issue and move on?”  This continuing stream of proposed amendments coming down from the Assembly is not just a matter of repetition and inconvenience.  These votes cost the church a huge price in time and energy, money and good will.

Why the presbytery votes keep coming

We wonder why the votes keeping coming around time and again, but the reason is not all that hard to figure out when we think about it carefully:

We live in a 51-49 church.  The count of actual vote counts cast by elders and ministers in the presbyteries during the 2008 amendment debate comes out pretty close to that.  The leaders of our congregations are just about as divided over this issue as it is possible to be, with responsible, godly, biblically serious Presbyterians on both sides of the aisle.

And the problem with divisions this deep is that practically speaking, a two or three percent majority vote is never going to be enough to put the  issue to rest.  So long as we have a partisan position of either side enshrined in the Book of Order as official church teaching, there are going to be very large numbers of conscientious Presbyterians on the opposing side who feel duty-bound to press for change. And General Assemblies being what they are, when the divisions are so close, a passionate minority is always going to be able to sway enough people in the middle to send the issue down to the presbyteries for another vote.

Becoming an honest church

 The solution to this situation is for us to be more honest as a church in our public witness.  There are times and seasons when the most faithful and truthful course for the church is to refrain from speaking publicly on a particular controversy.  And when it comes to the sexuality debate, the plain truth is that we are a house divided, and as a body we are incapable of speaking on it with one voice.  We put up a false front to the world when we adopt a partisan position as our official policy, one that ignores the conscientious convictions of a very substantial portion of our own membership.  And the bitter fruit of this dishonest witness is an endless stream of turmoil in our denomination.

The great gift that Amendment 10-A brings to our church is that it is not a partisan statement from either side.  It lifts up mainstream Presbyterian values that all of us can affirm.  It does not take a position pro or con on the sexuality debate, but affirms the Lordship of Christ and directs us to a serious appropriation of our ordination vows.  These vows affirm that we will carry out our ministries in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and continually guided by our confessions.

An end to the voting

 With Amendment A incorporated into the Constitution, we will no longer be in a situation where a large portion of the church experiences a serious violation of conscience through the church’s public witness on the sexuality issue.  And that means the reason to keep re-fighting the issue every time we have an Assembly will go away.  Amendment A lifts up what Presbyterians are able to affirm together with integrity—that we are all trying conscientiously to follow Jesus as we know him in the Scriptures and affirm him in our ordination vows.  No longer will the church be offending a huge segment of its own membership by proclaiming a hotly contested conclusion as the official position of the whole church.

Once we get an honest, non-partisan statement in the Book of Order, all the people who are tired of fighting will rally around it, and there will no longer be a majority of Assembly commissioners wanting to dislodge it from the book. Amendment 10-A will give us the break we have all been longing for, eliminating the need for the poor, long-suffering presbyteries to re-fight our denominational policy every time we have a General Assembly.

Amendment A will remove divisive ambiguity from our Constitution

Many people assume that the fidelity-chastity provision in G-6.0106b provides a secure safeguard against the ordination of practicing gay and lesbian Christians:

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.

Even if you are one who believes a safeguard against such ordinations is necessary, it is not at all clear that the current language will be able to provide it over the long term.

Ambiguity around obedience

Court cases around matters of sexuality policy have started pointing out serious ambiguities in the text of G-6.106b.  Let me highlight a few of them. First, “Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture…”

Obviously obedience to Scripture is a good and desirable thing.  Those of us who are sincere Christians are all striving to follow the teachings of Jesus faithfully, and to conform our lives to scriptural teaching.  But those of us who are striving to be disciples also know the truth in what Scripture tells us about our efforts: that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).  In citing obedience to Scripture as an ordination requirement without nuance or qualification, G-6.0106b collides with our Confessions.  Question 149 of the Westminster Larger Catechism affirms what we all know to be the case:

Q 149.  Is any man able perfectly to keep the Commandment of God?
A.  No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the Commandments of God; but doth daily break them in thought, word and deed. 

Contrary to what G-6.0106b would appear to require, no one is able perfectly to keep the Commandments of God.

The result of this collision between the language of our constitution and the reality of the Christian life as described in Scripture and our Confessions is that G-6.0106b becomes an inadequate vehicle for imposing simple, straightforward requirements on the church.  By framing its discussion of standards in terms of an unqualified and impossible obedience to Scripture, G-6.0106b inevitably involves the church in matters of interpretation and judgment about what kind and how much obedience the church is going to require.  Since none of us lives perfectly in accordance with scriptural teaching, it’s not clear how requiring such perfection can disqualify only one single group in the church.

Ambiguity around chastity

G-6.0106b also speaks about a requirement of “chastity in singleness.” Arguments are starting to appear in current court cases pointing out the ambiguities of this phrase, and raising doubts about whether this requirement actually excludes partnered gay and lesbian Christians from ordained office. Many people assume that “chastity in singleness” is a synonym for “celibacy,” that it means refraining from sexual activity.  But it’s not at all clear that this definition can be sustained.

 Question 108 of the Heidelberg Catechism, for example, conveys a very different understanding:

Q 108.  What does the seventh commandment teach us?
A.  That all unchastity is condemned by God, and that we should therefore… live chaste and disciplined lives whether in holy wedlock or in single life.

If chastity is a virtue of married as well as single life, it obviously cannot mean refraining from all sexual activity.  And if chastity can be practiced in the context of a heterosexual marriage, why not in a faithful, covenanted same-gender partnership?

In short, if our confessions understand chastity as meaning something other than refraining from sexual activity, the notion that a “chastity in singleness” requirement is going to effectively exclude partnered gay and lesbian people from ordination seems very doubtful.

Ambiguity around repentance

The last sentence of G-6.0106b reads, “Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained…”  The problem here is figuring out what a refusal to repent might mean.  Repentance is repeatedly defined in our confessions as process in which a person comes to recognize his or her sin, and in horror turns away from it to seek salvation in God’s mercy.  Question 87 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism presents an apt example:

Q 87.  What is repentance unto life?
A.  Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin…doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God…

Knowledge of one’s own sin and a feeling of true remorse for it are essential components of repentance as our tradition understands it.

By this definition, a refusal to repent would presumably mean having knowledge of one’s sin, but stubbornly refusing to turn away from it.  It is not at all clear this applies, however, to persons who in all good conscience do not believe their covenanted relationship with a beloved partner is inherently sinful.

The debate in our church is not about whether it’s important to live an upright or moral life—everyone agrees that faithfulness is important.  The debate is about what true faithfulness actually looks like in particular situations.  We might say that people who disagree with us over sexuality are mistaken in how they interpret and follow Scripture.  But being mistaken in one’s beliefs is very different from refusing to repent.  Neither repentance nor its refusal is possible apart from a sincere belief that the activity in question is actually sinful.  Refusing to repent is not a relevant charge to bring against people who don’t believe what they are doing is a sin.

A costly problem

These ambiguities in the language of G-6.0106b are more than just academic issues.  Whether we personally find these ambiguities compelling or not, they open the door to a long series of legal challenges and complaints, asking our church courts and General Assembly to clarify and interpret the ambiguous terms.  Such legal actions tend to be slow and drawn out and incredibly expensive.  The resolution of a single case can cost well in excess of $100,000!  And it will take a great many cases to sort out all the issues left hanging by the flawed language of G-6.0106b.

A burden on the church

In sum, when we have in our church’s constitution a partisan statement on an issue that deeply divides the church, the result is going to be a never-ending series of fights in the presbyteries around votes to change it.  In addition to those battles, the ambiguities in the actual language of G-6.0106b also promise a long and costly series of fights in the church courts.  And after all that effort, the end result is likely to be a safeguard that is too full of holes to be effective anyway!  In the meantime the amount of time and energy and money and emotion being devoted to these struggles is completely scandalous.

Over and over again I hear people saying we need to stop, that our church needs to find a way to move beyond this damaging debate and get on with the business of spreading the Gospel.  Amendment 10-A is a way to do just that by lifting up the Lordship of Jesus!

Amendment A will help us faithfully handle disagreement

What would happen in the church if we replaced the current language of G-6.0106b with Amendment A?  Would we be doing away with sexual morality, depriving the defenders of the traditional status quo of any grounds for defending their position?  To the contrary!  The foundations of faithful biblical morality would remain strongly present in our ordination standards.

No lowering of standards

G-6.0106a in our Book of Order would continue with a strong statement about qualifications for ministry:  “[T]hose who undertake particular ministries should be persons of strong faith, dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Their manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel..”

Amendment A itself would lift up the church’s desire “to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life.”  It also requires examining bodies to determine a candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill the requirements expressed in the ordination vows.  This is an exacting standard, for included in the ordination vows are requirements to acknowledge Christ as Lord of all and head of the Church, accept Scripture to be the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ and God’s Word to each of us, receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed Faith, obey Christ under the authority of Scripture, guided by the confessions, and many others.

Under Amendment A, there will be no backing away in our ordination process from a full affirmation of the Lordship of Christ and the authority of Scripture. And those who want to argue that these commitments mean excluding practicing gay and lesbian believers will have every right and ground to make their case.

A more productive debate

Several things will change under Amendment A.  First, we will see a change in the nature and location of the sexuality debate.  Right now we have a national fight about constitutional technicalities, which pits large groups of relative strangers against one another in the General Assembly.  Amendment A will recast the debate as a conversation about individual candidates coming before our presbyteries and sessions.   This means that our church’s practice will be worked out among people who live and work and minister together, and who consequently have the opportunity to engage this issue as a conversation among friends.  The Peace, Unity and Purity Task Force recognized how much more productive and Christian the conversation becomes when it takes place among people who know, care about and respect one another.

 The debate will also become a conversation about Scripture, replacing the current focus on arcane details of constitutional language and constitutional case law.  This focus on the main issues will be all to the good, helping our church to keep in mind the real issues.

The third change we will see is that our denomination will become more flexible in its approach to the ordination issue, allowing more room for differences of opinion.  Individual candidates would be examined on a case-by-case basis, and it is probable that some presbyteries and some regions of the country will prove to be more open than others to the ordination of gay and lesbian believers.

Faithful flexibility

Now some people have stuck a “local option” label on this kind of arrangement, as if that in itself were sufficient to condemn it.  But local option has a long and distinguished history in our Presbyterian system, especially in times of controversy.  It makes good sense: Candidates whose views are wonderfully suited for ministry in rural Iowa may not be the best fit for churches in uptown Manhattan, and vice versa.  These regional variations are precisely the reason why we have local governing bodies examining candidates for ministry, rather than running everyone through a uniform national process.  Such regional variations are also the reason why, when a minister moves from one presbytery to another, we re-examine that person for ministry in the new context, rather than allowing the first examination to confer across-the-board approval.

There are good, biblical reasons for confidence that God’s grace will continue to guide the church in and through such variations in its practice. It is helpful to recall the advice of wise old rabbi Gamaliel in Acts 5.  When confronted with the possibility of some radical and unprecedented changes within his religious community, he advised his colleagues to show some flexibility and toleration:  “…[I]f this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail, but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them–in that case you may even be found fighting against God!” (Acts 5:38-39).

Theological integrity

There are also helpful discussions in the theological tradition, associated with the name of St. Alphonsus de Liguori, which suggest that allowing flexibility in the church’s practice may in fact be the path of higher righteousness.  These discussions consider what the church should do in a situation where its best teachers  disagree over the validity of a church law.  The practical conclusion of these discussions is that the church is justified in making room for the less restrictive practice if the law is opposed by five or six faithful and dedicated church teachers who have proper training in such matters.

Now in point of fact, the PC(USA) currently has many more than five or six distinguished teachers who question the faithfulness of excluding gay and lesbian Christians from ordination.  In 2001, thirty-three bible scholars—half the biblical faculties of our Presbyterian seminaries–sent out a letter titled “The Whole Bible for the Whole Human Family.”  This letter opposed the continued exclusion of gay and lesbian persons from ordination.  In addition to the Bible scholars, there are also a great many theologians and ethicists and pastoral counselors in our seminaries who hold similar views.

A more faithful course

When a church law is in significant doubt like this, many theologians have argued that the church is justified in taking a more lenient position in its application.  The reason for this becomes clear when we consider the stakes involved in being wrong on either side of the issue.

If the teachers advocating the exclusion are wrong and the church follows them, it runs the risk of creating false barriers and impediments to the Gospel, driving people away from Jesus!  But if those teachers who advocate inclusion are in error, and people listen to their advice, the worst that will happen is that people will believe them and commit sins of ignorance, which are easily covered by grace.  In a situation where there is serious doubt about the faithfulness of excluding gays and lesbians from the ministry, the safest path spiritually is to err on the side of grace.  Passing Amendment A would open up this safer path of gracious flexibility to the Presbyterian Church.

Empowering presbyters

Finally, it is worth noting one additional effect that the passage of Amendment A will have for the church.  Because passage would move the debate to the presbyteries, it would significantly empower individual Presbyterians to have a meaningful impact on their church’s practice.  Under the current status quo, the debate over sexuality is focused at the national level on technical issues of constitutional law.  This focus tends to lodge major power and influence with single-issue national advocacy groups.  Consequently, it leaves ordinary Presbyterians feeling helpless and disempowered, unable to make a meaningful contribution to the church’s conversation.

With the passage of Amendment A, the church’s position will be a function of what actually takes place in sessions and presbyteries as they consider the calls of individual candidates. That means the way for me to make a difference is simple and clear:  I talk to my friends!  I engage my neighbors and colleagues at presbytery and on the session.  I sit down with my fellow presbyters for a serious conversation.  I can do more than just send money to some far-off advocacy group, my own voice is important.  My ability to persuade other people makes a difference.  That’s the kind of church I want to be a part of.  That’s the way followers of Christ who care about the church and one another engage difficult issues.

A clear-cut case

Summing up, the church should pass Amendment A because it will (1) put an end to the never-ending cycle of General Assembly battles and presbytery votes that drain so much time, money and energy away from the church’s mission;  (2) remove ambiguity from our Constitution and spare us a long, frustrating and extremely costly round of technical litigation in our church courts; and (3) move the sexuality debate down to the local level where a faithful flexibility can help ease tensions in the church, and ordinary people will empowered to make a difference.

Dr. Mark Achtemeier has served the Presbyterian Church since 1984 as a pastor, theologian, and seminary professor.

© 2010 by P. Mark Achtemeier.  All rights reserved.

Pro Amendment 10-A Educational 5-minute speech

The Rev. Dr. Laura S. Sugg, Presbytery of the James
October 16, 2010

My name is Laura Sugg and I am a minister member of the Presbytery of the James.  I serve as Associate Pastor and UVA Campus Minister at Westminster Church, Charlottesville, and I rise to speak in favor of Amendment 10-A.

Conversations like the one we are having now are difficult and sometimes painful.  Each of us here shares a commitment to Christ that is based in scripture, informed by the essential tenets of the Reformed tradition and by the confessions, and we respect our polity.  Each of us has promised to seek the peace, unity and purity of the church.  In all this, we seek to be guided by the Holy Spirit.  There is so much upon which we agree.  Yet there are times when we come to different conclusions even when we prayerfully engage with the same scripture, the same confessions and theological traditions.  So, there is pain in the voices of our speakers—both pro and con.

When language was added to the Book of Order thirteen years ago, I remember being concerned that it was a departure from previous language that held up national standards without imposing one particular interpretation of God’s call in scripture. The then-new language is easy to follow if you are married, but all church members and ministers were being told that in this one area of their lives, their consciences would be bound by their denomination’s polity.  We have no similar specific prescriptions about how much money elders and ministers should give to the church, how they should keep the Sabbath, whether or how many children they should have, or other important matters. 

Nine years ago, the church gathered a very diverse group of Presbyterians to study the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church, and four years ago their report was received.  Even after hours of Bible study and prayer, they never came to an agreement about sexuality; that is partly why they pointed the PCUSA back to our historical affirmations that “God alone is Lord of the conscience;” and in 222-year-old language:  while “we think it necessary to make effectual provision that all who are admitted as teachers be sound in the faith, we also believe that there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.” (G-1.0305) 

This amendment is in keeping with the Task Force’s desire for clear national standards that are applied by the local governing bodies who are best equipped to discern whether or not a candidate lives up to those criteria.  By lifting up standards that all Presbyterians can affirm and leaving out language that binds the conscience of some, Amendment 10-A balances the historic principles of church government of the right of private judgment, the value of corporate judgment, and the necessity for mutual forbearance.

I have spent about 17 of my 23 years in ministry working with young adults.  Over these years I can see the faces of so many gifted students—people who loved Jesus, who had gifts to share with the Church.  I see faces of people who are now leaders in other denominations because their gifts and desire for service were rejected, or because of the dismay they felt at the exclusion of their gay friends. 

Today, I see young people looking for a church that is focused on worshipping God, helping our neighbor, caring for creation, and understanding God’s word.  Even students who grew up in more conservative congregations are seeking a discipleship that moves beyond a fixation on the bedroom, and moves out into the sanctuary, into the marketplace and the public square.  They are good Presbyterians whose views are in keeping with those voices from 1788 that recognized both the need for standards AND the need for mutual forbearance when believers disagree.

Amendment 10-A brings us closer to the church they seek.  It is language that all Presbyterians—young and old—can affirm.  To honor that “God alone is Lord of the conscience” and to exercise mutual forbearance is not a watering down of the gospel.  Both sides of this debate care deeply about God’s written word and engage with scripture deliberately and prayerfully.  10-A recognizes what Presbyterians have known for centuries: the Church cannot always speak with one voice on all issues.  It does not take a position on the contested issues surrounding sexuality but does hold up high standards of submission to the Lordship of Christ in all of life. 

I ask you to vote in favor of the Amendment.

*Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

“Here we go again!”

Having voted on a proposed amendment to G-6.0106b just two years ago, some may be thinking that there’s nothing more to consider in Amendment 10-A.

Presbyterians, however, have a commitment to openness to the new things God may be doing, and to listening carefully to one another as we seek to discern the will of Christ.  We have an obligation to consider Amendment 10-A on its own merits.

The Covenant Network supported the passage of Amendment 08-B, the proposal to change the wording of G-6.0106b from the 218th General Assembly (2008).   Amendment 10-A, however, was drafted with attention to correcting both the well-known deficiencies of G-6.0106b and the perceived weaknesses that were criticized in Amendment 08-B.   For a side-by-side comparison, click here.

10-A relies heavily on the historic Presbyterian polity of the Adopting Act of 1729, carefully balancing universal and local, objective and subjective, the need for common standards to be applied to individual candidates.

In comparison to the current G-6.0106b, Amendment 10-A:

• Lifts up the Lordship of Jesus Christ as the foundation of all standards for ordination.
• Returns Scripture and the confessions to their proper authority in relationship to the Lordship of Christ.
• Corrects the theological error of singling out one aspect of ethical living for particular scrutiny.
• Renews attention to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation.
• Removes the hypocrisy of pretending to exclude all who “refus[e] to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin,” which if honored would exclude 100% of candidates.
• Ceases to impose one interpretation of Scripture on everyone in violation of the “Historic Principles of Church Order” that “there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.”

In comparison to Amendment 08-B, Amendment 10-A:

• Clarifies that the constitutional questions are not the only area of inquiry in examinations of candidates for ordained office, specifically listing “calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office” along with Scripture and the confessions, in an insistence on rigorous examinations.
• Substitutes the more definite “determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements” for “establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards,” a phrase that some thought to be too subjective and watered-down.

There are, nevertheless, ways in which Amendment 10-A does not differ from the current Constitution or the previously proposed amendment.  In particular, it is basic to Presbyterian polity that “no person can be placed in any permanent office in a congregation or governing body of the church except by election of that body.” (G-6.0107)   As is currently true, it will continue to be the case under the wording of 10-A that no presbytery, Session, or congregation can be forced to accept an ordained officer whom that body determines to be unfit for service.

Why We Repeatedly Revisit G-6.0106b
(and Will Continue to Do So Until It’s Amended)
Reason 4 – The Health and Witness of the Church

Tricia Dykers Koenig
Covenant Network National Organizer

At least one overture to amend the current paragraph G-6.0106b has been sent to every General Assembly but one since 1997, when it became part of the Book of Order in an attempt to “settle the issue” of the ordination of persons in same-sex relationships.   Until the paragraph is amended to be more consistent with Reformed theology and polity, that is sure to continue.

This is the fourth in a series of articles exploring the reasons that “the issue” will come back to GAs and the presbyteries again and again, until amendment is made.

Reason 4 – The PCUSA’s health and witness are being undermined by the current G-6.0106b.

Amendment 10-A will free the church for mission, both evangelism and social justice, by eliminating official policy that has contributed to the impression of the unchurched  that Christians have forgotten to follow Jesus, and by allowing the PCUSA to move beyond this argument.

It is more and more a reality that the world is recognizing the presence of LGBT persons in our families, churches, communities  –  and their need to be treated with simple human dignity.   It’s becoming evident to many that a percentage of people, far from making a conscious choice, simply discover themselves to be gay;  and that the gender of the partner to whom they are attracted and with whom they yearn to build a life does not affect their ability to do their jobs,  nurture their families, be good neighbors – or serve their Lord.

The fact that societal perceptions about gay persons are changing rapidly is not a reason in itself to change the church’s policy which stigmatizes them – not all changes are according to the will of God –  but we do need to be aware of how our witness to the Gospel, not to mention the question of basic kindness, comes across to those who do not know Christ, both heterosexual and LGBT.   Many look at our continued policy of exclusion and wonder how that squares with the message that Jesus loves us all:

Non-Christians aged 16-29 years old were asked, “What is your current perception of Christianity?”

• 91% said antihomosexual
• 87% said judgmental
• 85% said hypocritical
• 78% said old-fashioned
• 75% said too involved in politics
• 72% said out of touch with reality
• 70% said insensitive to others

unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity … and Why It Matters
– The Barna Group,  David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, 2007

The current wording of G-6.0106b seeks to impose one interpretation of Scripture upon all – an interpretation that violates the consciences of many.  The conflict is draining energy and resources away from other areas of ministry.  What a relief it would be to set the argument over the paragraph aside as we continue to seek discernment of God’s will together!

Amendment 10-A doesn’t take a stand one way or the other on the morality of same-sex relationships, but appeals to principles all Presbyterians can affirm together – above all, the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The protracted conflict over ordination standards is in itself a negative witness, because in our debates with one another we often fail to treat each other with kindness and respect.  If we who claim the name of Jesus can’t demonstrate in our actions and attitudes that we love one another, why should the world believe that Christ has any power to offer?

I and many others are absolutely  convinced that an amendment will prevail – not because cultural change is relentless, but because the power of the Gospel as good news to all persons, all families, is too strong to be denied.

Every one of us is tired of this conflict, but it won’t be over until all are welcomed and honored in the name of Christ, for the glory of God.

Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.  – Romans 15:7

No time like the present!   Vote to approve Amendment 10-A:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

Why We Repeatedly Revisit G-6.0106b
(and Will Continue to Do So Until It’s Amended)
Reason 3 – Presbyterian Polity

Tricia Dykers Koenig
Covenant Network National Organizer

At least one overture to amend the current paragraph G-6.0106b has been sent to every General Assembly but one since 1997, when it became part of the Book of Order in an attempt to “settle the issue” of the ordination of persons in same-sex relationships.   Until the paragraph is amended to be more consistent with Reformed theology and polity, that is sure to continue.

This is the third in a series of articles exploring the reasons that “the issue” will come back to GAs and the presbyteries again and again, until amendment is made.

Reason 3 – The current G-6.0106b is inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Current 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. 

Amendment 10-A:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

Rather than mandating conformity to a particular contested reading of scripture regarding sexual practice to the exclusion of all other qualities, the new paragraph emphasizes the experience of call, the whole character of the candidate, and the confirmation of the examining body who knows the individual.   

Our current conflict over ordination standards isn’t new;  American Presbyterians have experienced it since the beginning of our history.  In 1729 the Adopting Act preserved the unity of the church by emphasizing the need for both national standards and their pastoral application by particular examining bodies in the consideration of individual candidates:     

…  And do therefore agree that all the ministers of this Synod, or that shall hereafter be admitted into this Synod, shall declare their agreement in and approbation of the Confession of Faith, with the Larger, and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as being, in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine, and do also adopt the said Confession and Catechisms as the confession of our faith…   And in case any minister of this Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall at the time of his making said declaration declare his sentiments to the Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial communion, if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship or government…

This “middle way” permeates the “Historic Principles of Church Order” and has served us well for nearly three centuries.   

G-1.0305              Differences of Views

                (5)          That, while under the conviction of the above principle we think it necessary to make effectual provision that all who are admitted as teachers be sound in the faith, we also believe that there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.

At various times in our history, whenever the Church has faced polarization and division on matters of ordination standards, it has found wisdom and healing in the balance – national standards, particular application.    

Amendment 10-A requires rigorous examination and emphasizes the constitutional questions.                

It neither requires nor prohibits the ordination of any candidate, but leaves with sessions and presbyteries the responsibility to discern call and to determine whether the standards have been met sufficiently. 

One fact often overlooked is that by the Act of 1729, the decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be in specific cases.  It was no general authority that might be stated in exact language and applied rigidly to every case without distinction.  It was an authority somewhat undefined, to be invoked in each particular instance…

It was clearly the intention that this decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be made after the candidate had been presented and had declared his beliefs and stated his motives personally, and after the examining body, whether Presbytery or (General) Synod, had had full opportunity to judge the man himself, as well as abstract questions of doctrine. 

Commission of 1925 (the “Swearingen Commission”)

This is not some recent  innovation, to be disparaged as “local option.”   It is basic to our polity:  

Election by the People

The government of this church is representative, and the right of God’s people to elect their officers is inalienable. Therefore, no person can be placed in any permanent office in a congregation or governing body of the church except by election of that body.          G-6.0107

Some governing bodies would ordain and install gay candidates; others would not, but the decision is made by the body that actually knows the person, and can evaluate matters related to sexuality in context with everything else they know about the candidate.  For those who are tired of talking about this, it won’t come up unless there’s a particular person whose gifts have already been recognized by the community.    

Amendment 10-A removes the theologically-deficient practice of singling out sexuality, as if sex is the church’s only moral and ethical concern. 

And it corrects the faulty hierarchy of authority that even some who support ‘fidelity and chastity’ recognize as a violation of our tradition:    

Our “hierarchy of authority” within the church is thus solidly established. It descends from Christ as God the Son and Lord over His Church. Next in order of precedence come the Scriptures from which are derived our Confessional corpus that describe our understandings of what Scripture teaches and commands, and, finally, the Book of Order as the practical framework by which we Presbyterians implement and exercise our calling as part of the universal Church of Jesus Christ…

With the hierarchy of authority understood, we must look to the reasons for this proposed change, and they are principally two: (1) the current standard contained in G-6.0106b flatly ignores the Scriptures as the superior standard and dislocate it solely to the Confessions that are subordinate; and, (2) the current language of G-6.0106b is simultaneously too vague and undefined and too narrowly focused on one particular set of sins.       – From the rationale for the overture from the Presbytery of Beaver-Butler, 219th  GA (2010) 

10-A maintains high standards for ordained office by focusing on the Lordship of Christ – as opposed to the current wording, in which Jesus Christ is entirely ignored. 

10-A removes the invitation to hypocrisy in the absurd idea that for the last 13 years we have been ordaining and installing only those who have repented of every “self-acknowledged practice the confessions call sin” – since applying that clause literally would disqualify everyone.  (Have you been resting from all worldly employments and recreations on the Sabbath [7.227]?  Do you persist in displaying a picture of Jesus [7.219]?)

 10-A returns to the time-honored Presbyterian way of maintaining unity by respecting freedom of conscience in the interpretation of Scripture and the duty of mutual forbearance;  if you disagree with my understanding , you are still free to hold your view, but without imposing it on those whose consciences lead them in another direction;  nor can I impose my conviction to exclude you. 

10-A will not end our disagreement about how to interpret Scripture; but it will allow the PCUSA to move beyond arguing about one paragraph in the Book of Order while we continue to discern God’s will. 

And it will restore the integrity of our Constitution.

Why We Repeatedly Revisit G-6.0106b
(and Will Continue to Do So Until It’s Amended)
Reason 2 – Scripture and Reformed Theology

Tricia Dykers Koenig
Covenant Network National Organizer

At least one overture to amend the current paragraph G-6.0106b has been sent to every General Assembly but one since 1997, when it became part of the Book of Order in an attempt to “settle the issue” of the ordination of persons in same-sex relationships.   Until the paragraph is amended to be more consistent with Reformed theology and polity, that is sure to continue.

This is the second in a series of articles exploring the reasons that “the issue” will come back to GAs and the presbyteries again and again, until amendment is made.

Reason 2 – Many Presbyterians are convinced that G-6.0106b violates both our understanding of God’s will as expressed in Scripture, and basic principles of Reformed theology.

Numerous volumes have been written – some resources are listed here, and they only scratch the surface.

Here is an abbreviated explanation of how I interpret what Scripture teaches:

First, what about the six or seven verses quoted as prohibiting homosexual practice?  Many of us are convinced that these are quite proper condemnations of behavior that was exploitative, such as the attempted rape in Sodom, and the sexual use of boys or slaves;  or cultic, that is, a part of idol worship –  that homosexual practice per se is a matter of uncleanness rather than sin, an ‘abomination’ in the same way that eating unclean animals was.

The Bible does reflect the cultural assumption that heterosexuality is normative, and of course most people are heterosexual so that’s to be expected; but then it also reflects the assumption that women are the property of men.  [“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20:17]  Just as we can retain the admonition against covetousness without continuing to consider a wife as comparable to an ox or a donkey, and without approving of owning a slave at all, we can retain the condemnation of exploitation, prostitution, and idol worship without condemning all same-sex practice.   Our guidelines for biblical interpretation involve figuring out which timeless principles underlie particular biblical provisions, then applying those principles to our circumstances.

Then, what about the rest of the Bible outside those few specific verses?  The idea that Scripture recognizes no legitimate intimate relationship outside monogamous heterosexual marriage ignores quite a few biblical realities.

Customs concerning marriage have changed dramatically through the centuries; most of the patriarchs had more than one wife and/or concubine.  How could they be “one flesh” with more than one woman without biblical condemnation?    Adam’s exclamation in Genesis 2:23-24 expresses his joy at finding someone who is truly kin:

“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.”

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

As we can see when Laban uses a similar phrase upon meeting his nephew Jacob [“Surely you are my bone and my flesh!” Genesis 29:14], it is a celebration of kinship and not restricted to heterosexual marriage.   When Jesus quoted Genesis – in reference not to same-sex relationships, but to divorce [Matthew 19:3-9] – he was emphasizing commitment and responsibility to family.

The creation stories in Genesis are descriptions of the predominant pattern of male-female human relationships.  It is an unnecessary leap to insist that an affirmation of one pattern is a prohibition of all others.  And even if one believes that the order of creation is proscriptive,  Christ’s  grace supersedes that order:

Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith.  But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian,  for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.  As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:24-28

When we read Scripture as a whole and in context,  all the major overarching themes lead us away from a conclusion that results in treating LGBT persons as defective or less-than:

• Exodus, liberation from bondage and oppression
• The prophetic call for justice and against domination
• Jesus’ insistence on associating with women, lepers, “outcasts and sinners”
• Paul’s insistence that faith in Jesus, not adherence to a set of legal requirements, is the constituting factor for membership in the covenant people
• The systematic extension of the gospel to those previously considered outsiders in Acts
• Peter and Cornelius [Acts 10-11], where the real subject of the vision about clean and unclean is not food, but people:  “What God has called clean, you must not call profane… If God then gave them the same gift that God gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?”
• The gift of the Holy Spirit
• God is love
• All members of the Body of Christ are needed, gifted, and valued

Jesus,  when asked the most important commandment,  told us to love God with our whole being, and to love our neighbor as ourselves [Matthew 22:36-40].   My understanding of Scripture is based on Jesus’  law of love –  which does not mean “anything goes as long as it’s for love.”   It means that Christ calls us to follow the course that is most conducive to individual and community well-being.   How can the God we know in Jesus Christ care more for a particular law or form of human relationship, than for all God’s children who suffer the consequences – unintended perhaps, but nonetheless real  –  of believing homosexual practice always to be sin?  If God is love, that can’t be right; what kind of God would be ok with the pervasive collateral damage inflicted by the church teaching against homosexuality?    As Paul proclaims: “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” [Romans 13:10]

In all my history with this conflict,  every opposing  argument boils down to the conclusion that Scripture says all homosexual practice is sinful.     Many who stand under biblical authority, including scholars converted through Bible study and encounters with actual people, are convinced that Scripture leads to the opposite conclusion .

In addition to singling out one behavior that many do not believe sinful, current ‘b’ violates one of the basic principles of Reformed theology – salvation by grace through faith – in implying that any of us earns our worthiness through righteous behavior, and that it is actually possible to repent of every practice the confessions call sin, whether we agree that each such practice is sinful or not.  Amendment 10-A strongly affirms that joyful submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ is our desire, and is simply realistic in recognizing that we are all on a journey of discipleship, striving to follow though perfection is unattainable.    Our Reformed tradition takes the reality of sin too seriously to pretend it’s possible to repent of everything, or to think that we could be worthy if somehow we could get the checklist just right; we are all reliant entirely upon the grace of God for our salvation and for our growth in faithfulness.

Friends, I could be wrong in my sincere attempt to discern the will of Christ on this matter – to presume that any one of us has an absolute corner on God’s Truth is idolatrous.  If I am wrong, and I have grievously sinned by teaching error and leading God’s children astray, when I stand before my Lord on Judgment Day I will only have grace to cover me.  If others are wrong, and the primary sin in question in this controversy is the harm caused by maintaining the stigma – leading persons to question their own worth in God’s eyes, giving them the anti-evangelical message that they have been abandoned by God and are not welcome in the church, suggesting that the Good News might not apply to them – if they are wrong, then those sinners – like me – will be covered only by grace, too.

None of us earns our worth or our salvation by getting this (or any) question right, nor do we jeopardize it by being wrong.  I stake my life on the promise in Romans 8 that nothing in all creation can separate me from the love of God in Jesus Christ my Lord.   If no power can separate me from God’s love, how is it possible that my mistake could, even my mistake about something important?  Or that a gay person’s could, as in their own conscience before God they know their committed relationship to be life-giving ?

It is not a matter of whether we stand under the authority of Scripture, but of how we understand what Scripture tells us about faithfulness.  It is not a matter of whether we seek to submit to the Lordship of Christ, but of how we understand what that means.  It’s not a matter of whether we expect our officers to maintain high standards, but of who determines if a particular candidate meets them.

Amendment 10-A seeks to make that crystal clear.

Why We Repeatedly Revisit G-6.0106b
(and Will Continue to Do So Until It’s Amended)
Reason 1 – People!

Tricia Dykers Koenig
Covenant Network National Organizer

At least one overture to amend the current paragraph G-6.0106b has been sent to every General Assembly but one since 1997, when it became part of the Book of Order in an attempt to “settle the issue” of the ordination of persons in same-sex relationships.   Until the paragraph is amended to be more consistent with Reformed theology and polity, that is sure to continue.

This is the first in a series of articles exploring the reasons that “the issue” will come back to GAs and the presbyteries again and again, until amendment is made.

The first and foremost reason:  Current ‘b’ with the theological/ biblical/ cultural position it represents  adversely affects the lives of people for whom Christ died:

• Candidates forced to choose between their call to serve the church and the integrity of being honest about who they are, who realize that they cannot be faithful and effective ministers if they are not open and authentic human beings.
• Moms and dads who eventually get over the pain and shame of the bogus message that their faulty parenting was responsible for their kids’ sexual orientation, and now just want their gay children to have the same respect, opportunity, safety in the world as their straight children.
• Children who sense they are different from an early age – who when they begin to figure out how they’re different pray fervently for the feelings to be taken away;  who when God doesn’t answer those prayers the way they begged for either get angry with God or turn their anger inward;  who despite never having engaged in any sexual activity get the message that they just need to repent, pray harder and when that doesn’t work fall into despair.
• Young men in prison because they acted out with violence the anti-gay attitudes of society, bolstered by the church.
• Kids who drop out of school when they cannot face another day of being bullied because someone thinks they are gay whether they are or not, and kids who live on the street after being kicked out by their parents.
• The father who thinks his son is burning in hell.
• The mother who belatedly realizes that her refusal to hear the truth of her daughter’s life led that beloved child  to commit suicide.
• The congregations who just want the leaders they are convinced God has sent them.

Actual human beings whom God loves.

That’s why this “issue” won’t go away – because it’s not an abstract issue, it’s real life, and sometimes death.  Absolutely there are important principles involved, but first and last it’s the people whom we cannot abandon.  There is an enormous human cost in maintaining the stigma against homosexuality that comes from the teaching that all same-sex practice is sinful –  suffering overwhelmingly due not to homosexual practice, but to the stigma.  And it’s not just gays who suffer from it:  the spiritual corrosion that comes from harboring hateful attitudes;  anguish of parents burdened with false guilt, and siblings in conflict with each other over how to treat the one they learn is gay, so much for family values.   For LGBT persons, damaged self-image;  loneliness;  fear and even reality of rejection if one is honest,  or the toxic effects of living a lie;  the denial to some not just of the opportunity for legitimate and joyful sexual expression, but of all aspects of an intimate relationship, most of which has nothing to do with sex;  overt discrimination and violence, both verbal and physical.

And ironically, some of the suffering that does result from actual same-sex practice can be attributed to the stigma of sinfulness too, for when we deny the possibility of any legitimate same-sex relationship we inadvertently encourage promiscuity, and that is dangerous and damaging.  Until the church allows for the possibility of legitimate same-sex relationships, it will be unable to encourage the values for gays that it ought to be upholding for all people – no casual sex, faithfulness within a committed partnership,  mutuality and tenderness and respect, the values that ought to characterize all relationships.  The gay Christians I know are not asking the church to lower the standards – they want to be held to the same high standards as everyone else, where the only difference is the gender of the partner to whom they have committed themselves.

So much suffering inflicted because of a difference that’s as un-chosen as left-handedness – another minority characteristic that used to be vilified.  At the last Presbyterian Coalition Gathering I attended, there was enthusiastic applause for a man who related his struggles, beginning when he was a boy growing up with an awareness of being different that he could not name.  Though I would not discount anyone’s story, as I listened to the self-identified “ex-gay” man I thought of the many other LGBT persons who are asking their fellow Christians to hear and take seriously their stories – the vast majority of them with different conclusions.  Why, I wondered, would this man’s audience prefer him to have suffered through the years of isolation and agonizing struggle, the self-loathing and doubt, the grief his situation caused his wife and family, rather than living in a world in which he was encouraged to accept himself from an early age and seek a healthy, fulfilling relationship appropriate to his sexual orientation?  His testimony was that he has repented and changed, which is what I hear as the goal of those who believe that homosexuality is sin, but even so there has been incredible pain…  not to mention the fact that the vast majority of mental health and other professionals assert that attempts to change sexual orientation rarely work and are strongly discouraged because they are actively harmful.*

When I worked during college in the Young Life evangelism ministry to youth, our motto was “earn the right to be heard” –  in order to share the truth of the Gospel, first we had to get to know those kids, really listen to them.  Likewise, the church must take seriously what LGBT people testify about the reality of their own lives.

• What if it’s true that the church’s policy is asking people to repent of how they are made by God, or give up all hope of having a committed life partner?
• What if it’s true that the church’s position reflected in ‘b’ leads people who were taught that Jesus loves them to doubt that truth, sometimes to the point of deathly despair?

Imagine a world in which the stigma against homosexuality no longer exists, so that all of us are supported as we grow to understand our sexuality, all taught the same ethical standards regardless of the gender of those to whom we are attracted, all confident in God’s love for us and nurtured to reflect that love as we relate to others, sexually and otherwise!   That’s the world the God I know in Jesus Christ wants us to build.  And I don’t take that stance in spite of the Scripture, but because of it.

*Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth:
A Publication Endorsed by:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association of School Administrators
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Counselor Association
American School Health Association
Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of Social Workers
National Education Association
School Social Work Association of America

Efforts to Change Sexual Orientation Through Therapy

The terms reparative therapy and sexual orientation conversion therapy refer to counseling and psychotherapy aimed at eliminating or suppressing homosexuality. The most important fact about these “therapies” is that they are based on a view of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major mental health professions. …  the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organizations.

Despite the general consensus of major medical, health, and mental health professions that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal expressions of human sexuality, efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy have been adopted by some political and religious organizations and aggressively promoted to the public. However, such efforts have serious potential to harm young people because they present the view that the sexual orientation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is a mental illness or disorder, and they often frame the inability to change one’s sexual orientation as a personal and moral failure.

The Covenant Network rejoices in the affirmation of the 219th General Assembly (2010) of an ordination requirement that is faithful to Reformed theology and Presbyterian polity, calls candidates for ordained office to the highest of standards – joyful submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ - and mandates rigorous examinations, without unwarranted focus on sexuality to the exclusion of other aspects of life and character.

What happens if the presbyteries approve both Amendment 10-A, the new text proposed to replace the current G-6.0106b, and an entirely new Form of Government?

The question is being raised because the revised Form of Government sent to the presbyteries by the 219th General Assembly (2010) retains the current wording of G-6.0106b, the highly contentious paragraph about ordination standards.

Concerned that the project of revising the Form of Government not be derailed by particularly controversial issues, the 217th General Assembly (2006) mandated that the Task Force drafting the revised “FOG” not consider any changes to G-6.0106b, or to the property trust clause currently found at G-8.0201.   The FOG revision and the amendment to G-6.0106b were each considered and approved by the 219th GA on its own merits, and each will take effect if ratified by at least 87 of the 173 presbyteries.

According to the Office of the General Assembly, “If the new Form of Government is approved by a majority of the presbyteries and Amendment 10-A is also approved by a majority of the presbyteries, the new language of G-6.0106b will become the language in the new Form of Government at G-2.0104b.”

G-2.0104b in the revised FOG is slightly different from the current G-6.0106b, consistent with the terminology being used for ordained offices in the revision:

Those who are called to ordered ministry 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, ruling elders, or teaching elders.

Amendment 10-A would replace the above paragraph, or G-6.0106b in the current FOG, with this:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

The Covenant Network Board supports both the amendment to G-6.0106b, and the Form of Government revision.

More information about the revised FOG, including the entire text and resources for study, has been posted here.