A Critique of the Proposed Replacement G-6.0106b

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

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.

Shift Away from the Candidate’s Obedience to the Governing Body’s Examination

The proposed replacement G-6.0106b does not include specific sexual standards required of each candidate for ordained/installed office. The proposed replacement G-6.0106b instead lists general responsibilities of governing bodies as they examine candidates. These general responsibilities of governing bodies are already included in the previous paragraph of the Book of Order at G-6.0106a.

The First Sentence

The current G-6.0106b calls the candidate to “lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church.” The proposed replacement G-6.0106b claims, “standards for ordained office reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life.” But these “standards for ordained office” are nowhere listed. In this proposed replacement G-6.0106b, it is the “church” which is seeking to live under the Lordship of Christ rather than the individual living in obedience to Scripture. What does that Lordship mean in the area of sexual expression? No clear standards are given by the replacement. In what the Confession of 1967 calls, “the moral confusion of our time,” the proposed replacement offers no sexual standard.

The proposed replacement G-6.0106b severs the connection between the clear word of Scripture on sexual behavior and the Lordship of Christ. It is in Scripture that God has revealed Christ and his will for us. The Westminster Confession makes clear,

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men… (6.006).

The Scots Confession tells us,

When controversy arises… [ask] what the Holy Ghost uniformly speaks within the body of the Scriptures and what Christ Jesus himself did and commanded. For it is agreed by all that the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of unity, cannot contradict himself. (3.18)

The proposed replacement of G-6.0106b puts the church in jeopardy of rejecting the unambiguous witness of Scripture on sexual behavior that is repeated from Genesis to Revelation. The proposed replacement of G-6.0106b asks the church to follow the spirit of the age by allowing behavior that God does not bless as if it is consistent with living under the Lordship of Christ. The proposed replacement seeks to bless sinful behavior that God seeks to transform.

The Second Sentence

The current G-6.0106b offers clear, biblical standards for sexual expression that are consistent with what the Confessions teach. A governing body examining a candidate for office needs only to ask, “are you living in compliance with G-6.0106b?” The candidate needs only to respond, “yes” or “no.”

The proposed replacement G-6.0106b speaks of the candidate’s “calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office.” It directs that the examination “not be limited to a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all the requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). This parallels what is already a part of the Book of Order in the paragraph before the current G-6.0106b, in paragraph “a”, which states,

…God gives suitable gifts for their various duties. In addition to possessing the necessary gifts and abilities, natural and acquired, those 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 in the church and in the world.

The proposed replacement language for G-6.0106b repeats requirements already appearing in the previous paragraph (G-6.0106a) and removes the specific sexual standards found in the current G-6.0106b.

The Third Sentence

In the current G-6.0106b the requirement for office is not perfection; it is repentance. The only candidates barred from ordination/installation are those who “refuse[ing] to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin.” The ordaining body should satisfy itself that the candidate has examined his/her own life and repented of behaviors that the confessions call sin. No candidate for office is without sin. The issue is whether any sin is defiantly embraced, or is repented of with a desire to be empowered by the Holy Spirit to live an amended life. This standard applies to all candidates.

The current G-6.0106b calls for “obedience to Scripture and conformity to the historic confessional standards.” The proposed replacement for G-6.0106b claims “Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to the individual candidates.” Since “guided” is a weak, nonspecific term, one can conceivably be “guided” by a specific admonition in Scripture while rejecting its command to obedience. “Guided” as used in this proposed replacement amendment, is a vacuous term that allows disobedience to the clear word of Scripture.

How would a candidate know what standards a particular governing body is applying to sexual relationships? It could depend on a policy stated in presbytery manuals; or it could depend on who attends and votes at a particular meeting of the governing body and what convictions those individuals hold on sexual behavior. Instead of one consistent biblical standard across the church, there could be as many standards as there are voting members.

Ordination is to the whole church. A minister of Word and Sacrament, an elder or a deacon, ordained by one session or one presbytery is ordained to the whole church. Since the PCUSA is a connectional body, what one session or presbytery does, it does on behalf of the whole church and it does in the name of Christ, the head of the church. Each Presbyterian is a party to each ordination/installation.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) has settled its understanding on this issue as reflected in majority votes of its presbyteries four times since 1997.

G-6.0106b was placed in the Book of Order in 1997 to give specific guidance to governing bodies and judicial bodies of the church. It did not change what had been the teaching or practice of the church.

The current biblical standards on sexuality unite the PC(USA) with the church around the world and throughout history. Scripture, the confessions, and the worldwide church have been clear and unequivocal that sexual expression is limited by Scripture to a man and a woman in marriage.

Further Consideration

The Lordship of Jesus Christ

As indicated in the first line of the proposed replacement for G-6.0106b, the real issue is the Lordship of Jesus Christ: Shall we submit to him “in all aspects of life”? And if so, then what exactly did Jesus say?

Some have said that the proposed change is so that we can follow Jesus rather than obey Scripture and the confessions. This is a false choice and leads to a Jesus who may speak apart from Scripture and in opposition to the clear word of Scripture. To avoid a distorted Jesus, it is important for us to submit joyfully to the entire revelation of Jesus in Scripture, not just the parts we like. If we create a Jesus separated from the full Jesus revealed in Scripture, we settle for a distortion invented by our own imagination.

Scripture from Genesis to Revelation has one consistent teaching on sexuality. Sexual expression from Genesis 2 when God says, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh” to Jesus’ quoting of that passage in Matthew 19:5, to Paul’s admonitions about sexual expression, all present one consistent teaching regarding God’s intent for sexual expression.

The centerpiece of Jesus’ teaching on this subject is found in Matthew 19:5 (Mark 10:8), when Jesus quotes Genesis 2. This is reaffirmed by the apostle Paul: “the two [man and woman] shall become one flesh.” Jesus, the Old Testament and Paul all teach that sex was created to form a lifelong inseparable bond between a man and a woman. Any other sexual expression— whether it be fornication, prostitution, homosexual intercourse, or a marriage that is less than lifelong—is a violation of this often repeated central teaching of Scripture on God’s intention for sexual expression.

Jesus makes these implications more explicit in passages such as his sin list in Mark 7:21-23. At the very top of this sin list is porneia, a broad term for all sexual behavior outside of marriage between a man and a woman. By forbidding porneia, Jesus reaffirms the teaching of the Old Testament, and contradicts the Greco-Roman culture of his day; by so doing, he also contradicts our own culture.

In Mark 7:22, Jesus also names the sin of aselgeia, a word that is usually translated “licentiousness.” It’s a word for shocking sexual behavior. Jews consistently used this word to refer to sexual offenses. I have published evidence that Jesus and other Jews used this word as a synonym for what they considered to be the most shocking sexual offenses named in the Old Testament: homosexual behavior, incest, and bestiality.1 Therefore, when some people claim that Jesus never spoke on homosexuality, here is evidence that he did.

Jesus’ upholding of the OT law may be seen in his teaching that even lust in the heart is a form of adultery (Matt 5:28), and in his teaching against divorce, where his point is that no one can erase a sexual relationship. Scripture never shows Jesus permissive toward sexual immorality. Indeed, this is the same Jesus who condemns the church at Thyatira for being tolerant toward sexual sin (Rev 2:20-21).

The proposed replacement to G-6.0106b is unacceptable, not because of what it says (yes, we should joyfully submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life), but because of what it removes: an explicit standard that fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman and chastity in singleness are part of what it means to follow Jesus, according to our authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in Scripture, to which our confessions also bear witness.

Responding To Those Who Say: “But times have changed…”

Jesus’ teaching on sexual expression is crystal clear. Throughout the rest of the New Testament, the apostles continue to lift up Christ’s teaching that sexual expression must be limited to the marriage of a man and a woman. Throughout the rest of the New Testament, porneia, aselgeia, and arsenokoitēs (a masculine word used in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 that means “he who has koitos with a male”) appear on numerous sin lists, along with Romans 1:26-27, which does not use any of these words, but clearly rules out same-sex behavior.

But those who wish to revise the Biblical teaching on sexuality often argue, “Times have changed! We know today that Paul’s word for homosexuality really means abusive pederasty. We also know that people in New Testament times knew nothing about the loving, mutual same-sex intimacy that we know today. They had no concept of inborn homosexual orientation. We live in a different world than the apostles did. It’s time to leave the Bible’s primitive morality in the past and replace it with a morality more acceptable to people in our modern age.”

That is incorrect. Here’s the truth: There is no discovery from ancient Greek or modern science that overthrows our historic Biblical teaching on sexuality. The word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians is a generic word. We have no reason to believe that the same-sex activity forbidden in the Bible is anything other than loving and mutual. And it is totally false that the first century church had no concept of sexual orientation like our modern one. Read Plato’s Symposium! Or read Callicratidas in Pseudo-Lucian who gives a speech pledging lifelong inseparable devotion to his male lover (even calling for their ashes to be mixed together). Or read Protogones in Plutarch, who declares homosexual love to be far superior to heterosexual love, which he says is “unmasculine.”

Our contemporary ideas cannot invalidate what God has said regarding sexual expression. God said it to a world with just as much sexual freedom as our own. God’s word to us remains the same.

Responding To Those Who Ask: “What about people who have gifts for ministry?”

In the last nationwide presbytery debate over fidelity and chastity, we often heard stories of gifted people in our churches, including Sunday school teachers, youth leaders, and pastors, who later acknowledged they were engaged in same-sex behavior. Some ask, “If God can use such persons to lead others to faith in Christ and to provide loving service to Christ and the church, how can we rule out ordination or leadership roles for such persons?”

There are many heterosexuals who have led people to Christ and had effective ministries, and yet have been removed from office because of heterosexual misconduct, some temporarily, some permanently. Scripture is clear that sin is a denial of Christ’s Lordship and no leader can be effective in leading others to submit to the Lordship of Christ when he/she has rejected it in his/her own life.

When there is repentance and evidence of an amended life, presbyteries have the discretion of restoring such leaders to office.

We are told that G-6.0106b is only about keeping gays and lesbians out of church office. This is true only if we ignore the far larger numbers of leaders who have been disciplined or have been removed from office because of heterosexual immorality, substance abuse, domestic violence, and embezzlement. No, G-6.0106b is about “any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin” and applies to all people equally.

One false argument made against the current standard in G-6.0106b is that it prevents anyone who has ever committed serious sin from serving in church leadership. No, it only rules out individuals who “refuse to repent.” The church ordains only sinners—repentant sinners.

Balkanization of the Church

The proposed G-6.0106b replaces a clear standard with no sexual standard. This local-option model works in cases where local presbyteries must judge whether an offender has sufficiently demonstrated repentance or recovery from life-dominating sin. But, without a clear sexual standard the denomination will become “balkanized” with pastors unable to move from presbytery to presbytery because of different standards in each.

Conclusion

For all its talk of joyfully submitting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life, this amendment leads us away from following the Jesus of Scripture. If we really want to follow Jesus, we need to keep our current standards. When questions arise on a subject (like Christology in 325 AD), the church needs to state clearly what it believes.

This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Sep/Oct 2010).