This article is from the “Resources for the Debate on Amendment B” found on the Theology Matters website, www.theologymatters.com.
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.
Proposed Replacement G-6.0106b
Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions.
In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church.
Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.
Both the current G-6.0106b and the replacement have three sentences and both start similarly with the words “Those who are called to….” Beyond that the content and the consequences diverge.
The First Sentence
First, the current constitution’s G-6.0106b accords with the historic understanding of Reformed Christians and is consistent with the Confessions in its call for officers to lead lives in obedience to Scripture.
By contrast, the replacement speaks of a pledge to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ. The rationale explains that the intent of the replacement is to separate Scripture from Jesus Christ and place Scripture in a subordinate position. This is a radical revision of Reformed theology’s insistence that we know the Savior by the Holy Spirit’s witness to us through the Scriptures (See, for example, BOC 6.001 and 9.27). Thus, instead of an ordination standard that requires officers to be under the authority of Scripture, the replacement suggests that Scripture is merely a witness to be “understood.” The replacement also diminishes the role given to the historical witness of the Confessions as authoritative boundaries to the interpretation of Scripture.
The Second Sentence
The second sentence of the current G-6.0106b defines and illustrates one such confessional boundary. It is the biblical requirement “to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001) or chastity in singleness.” The specific nature of this requirement is in direct response to the question of whether sexual relations outside marriage and, in particular, homosexual relations, are consistent with the will of God and may be approved by the church. The replacement ignores this question. It establishes no definite constitutional ordination requirement. And it leaves unspoken what is obedience to Jesus Christ on this matter. This is precisely the place where proponents of the replacement would support the radical idea that obedience to Jesus Christ is at variance with obedience to Scripture.
Both second sentences use the word “fidelity.” The context and application of the word, however, are quite different. The current G-6.0106b requires fidelity in marriage. The replacement says that assent to the ordination questions means fidelity to the standards of the church. The replacement does not specify exactly what standard or standards require fidelity.
G-6.0108 specifies that “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.” The current G-6.0106b gives a standard by which a candidate AND a governing body may examine the readiness and suitability for ordination of that particular candidate. If the replacement is adopted, the responsibility of the governing body appears to be nullified since the candidate’s declaration would be considered sufficient attestation of fidelity to the standards.
The Third Sentence
The third sentence illustrates another radical difference between the current G-6.0106b and the replacement. Repentance for sins committed is at the core of historic Reformed and Christian teaching. The standard is announced clearly in sentence two of the current G-6.0106b. However, it does not require success in living up to the standard. Rather it requires the willingness to live up to the standard or to repent from the failure to do so. So sinners can be and are regularly ordained, provided they are willing to amend their sinful deeds, whether or not they have been successful in doing so at the time of ordination. The third sentence of the current G-6.0106b expresses a definite prohibition of ordination for the unrepentant. And it makes the determination of repentance the responsibility of the ordaining governing body, not just the candidate.
By contrast, the third sentence of the replacement recognizes the sincerity of a candidate’s efforts to adhere to these now unspecified standards. The grammar does not express a requirement, but a pre-formed and unexamined judgment that automatically “establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.” This sentence could have said that “it is the responsibility of the governing body charged with examination…to establish the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.” But the replacement does not say that. Instead it observes that the process of sentences one and two establishes the candidate’s sincerity. No specific standard would exist; thus there would be no means of judging sincerity. It would have to be assumed. Readiness and suitability for ordination also would have to be assumed.
Conclusion
The original G-6.0106b is in accord with historic Christian, Reformed and Confessional teaching and practice. It connects the PC (USA) with the church universal. The replacement puts in place a radical revision of the relationship between Scripture and authority in the PC (USA) and removes specificity and clarity from the examination process for ordinands. Its intention is to provide opportunity for the ordination of those who engage in sin without repentance, particularly in the area of non-marital sexual relations and replaces repentance with sincerity as the examined attitude for ordination.
The effect of the replacement’s ordination standards would be to substitute vagueness for the current specific standards. The GA PJC decision in Bush v. Pittsburgh (Remedial Case 218-10, Feb. 2008) rested on the specificity of the current G-6.0106b: “Section G-6.0106b contains a provision where conformity is required by church officers ‘to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness.’ The church has decided to single out this particular manner of life standard and require churchwide conformity to it for all ordained church officers.” If the replacement Amendment B succeeds, we must ask where any specific manner of life ordination standard will be found.
This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Sep/Oct 2008).
