1. Is Amendment “A” “common ground?” NO Will Amendment “A” bring healing to the denomination? NO
There is no common ground on the question “will the Presbyterian Church (USA) ordain people who practice sexual relationships outside of marriage?” The answer must be either “yes” or “no.” A majority of the presbyteries have already said, “NO” and passed the Book of Order statement G-6.0106b.
2. Is there any sexual relationship which would be prohibited by Amendment “A?” NO.
Nowhere does this amendment limit sexual expression to marriage. Instead, it speaks of all relationships: “in marriage, in singleness and in all relationships of life.”
3. Wouldn’t “integrity” and “fidelity” convey a marriage covenant? NO
The 1991 Sexuality Report defines “integrity” and “fidelity.” Although the report was rejected by the 1991 GA, the PCUSA continues to print and distribute the report. The report rejects the biblical mandate which bars sexual expression outside of marriage labeling it a patriarchal construct that oppresses people. Instead the report advocates all sexual expression which is mutually agreed upon and evidences “justice-love.” The report explains what it means by “fidelity” saying, “the precise conditions required by such fidelity of commitment and purpose cannot be prescribed in a legalistic or static fashion. . . .we must learn to pay primary attention to the substance and quality of our relations, not to matters of form or so-called respectability.”
The report explains “integrity” saying, “At the very least moral maturity requires an acceptance—and a celebration—of a diversity of sexual relations with integrity and moral substance.” It further explains, “self-naming strengthens self-affirmation and personal integrity.” In other words, to live with integrity is to live a self-affirming life. If a person self-names himself or herself a homosexual, integrity would demand living joyfully according to that understanding. In contrast, biblical faith calls us to recognize our sinfulness as defined by God, affirm Christ and his work on our behalf, and look to Christ to transform our lives and conform us to His.
4. Doesn’t saying “under Jesus Christ” mean that there are boundaries to behavior, even if those boundaries are not spelled out? NO.
By calling for “obedience to Jesus Christ” the amendment separates Christ from His Word and creates a hierarchy with Jesus Christ at the pinnacle, followed in descending order by Scripture, and the Confessions. This is wrong both theologically and historically. In the Reformed tradition, authority begins with the Scripture. We cannot know Christ apart from the scriptural witness to Him. Scripture is the source of all true knowledge of Jesus Christ. By separating Christ from Scripture, liberal theology then claims that Christ has “spoken a new word” apart from Scripture or that only certain portions of Scripture represent the true Christ.
5. Is there any way we can know how this amendment will be interpreted? YES.
The United Church of Christ had an almost identically worded resolution before their national Synod on July 7 and they approved it. The UCC openly ordains practicing homosexuals. The Presbyterian News Service reported “The Synod [UCC] has also encouraged the denomination to be ‘open and affirming’ to gay and lesbian people.” (PNS 9731)
6. If the Amendment is approved, wouldn’t “authoritative interpretation” remain in place and bar the ordination of anyone who practices sexual relationships outside of marriage? NO
Cliff Kirkpatrick, stated clerk of the General Assembly, has written, “This Amendment (Amendment A) may make it easier to change that authoritative interpretation in future years since it will not require a new constitutional amendment. . . .”
First, the “authoritative interpretation” that bars ordination of those who practice sexual relationships outside of marriage was established by the 1993 General Assembly. The Constitution on which that interpretation was based no longer exists—it was modified by the inclusion of G6.0106b (Amendment “B”) in 1997. If Amendment “A” passes, it will be modified again. It would seem logical, therefore, that a new and different authoritative interpretation would likely be made immediately upon passage of Amendment A to bring it in line with the constitution as it would then exist.
Second, “authoritative interpretation” is established in either of two ways: by a majority vote of the commissioners to any General Assembly or by a majority vote of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission. All it takes to establish a new authoritative interpretation is for a majority vote of either the GA or the PJC. Seven of the members of the PJC, in response to a case before them in 1995, wrote a “concurring opinion” in which they said they believe the GA’s authoritative interpretation barring ordination of those who engage in homosexual practice is not valid and if clear language is not written into the Book of Order, they would no longer support the barring of practicing homosexuals from ordained ministry. There are 16 members of the PJC. The seven who signed the concurring opinion remain on the PJC today. With the addition of several new members, the PJC may now have a majority that supports the ordination of homosexuals.
7. How can there be healing in the denomination on this issue?
There is one remedy the Bible gives us for dealing with sin. That is to repent, turn from our sinful ways, and receive the mercy of God in Christ. The first step in that process is to acknowledge that our behavior is indeed sinful. Sexual expression outside of marriage is not the only sin. However, it is the sin we are dealing with in this amendment. Until our brothers and sisters who desire to practice sexual relationships outside of marriage acknowledge that they need to repent, they will not experience God’s healing.
8. Who should vote “Yes” for this amendment?
Only those people who wish to change the constitutional standards of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and allow ordained officers to engage in sexual relationships outside of a one man, one woman marriage.
9. Who should vote “NO” for this amendment?
Only those people who believe that Scripture is clear: that disciples of Jesus Christ should practice chastity in singleness and fidelity in marriage.
10. Are there other amendments to be voted on which should also be of concern? YES
- B.5. which Amends G-14.0405b regarding ordination questions should be disapproved. This removes “discipline” from the ordination vows. At a time in the life of the church when discipline is a major issue, as some ordained officers publicly renounce the constitution, we should not remove “discipline” from the ordination vows.
- D. which Amends G-9.0404 regarding per capita should be disapproved. These changes allow the GA, synods and presbyteries to fund their operating budgets from “general undesignated mission giving, designated mission giving, or apportioned among the lower governing bodies in proportion to the number of members (per capita apportionment) or apportioned among its constituent churches according to some method approved by the governing body.” This amendment allows operating expenses to be paid from “designated mission giving” thus opening the possibility of negating the intent of designated mission giving. In addition, the governing body can apportion its expenses according to a formula voted on by the body. In other words, if this amendment passes, the “per capita” assessment no longer needs to be based on church membership! Instead, it could also be apportioned among its constituent churches according to some other formula. The wording of this amendment would not prevent liberal members of a presbytery from voting to assess a conservative church in excess of what its member-based per capita would have been because the presbytery determines the church has certain assets. We should ask what problem exists with per capita that this amendment is attempting to remedy. Unless we clearly understand the problem and can determine whether this is an appropriate solution, we should vote against the amendment.
- E. which amends G-11.0103 and G-12.0102 regarding domestic violence should be disapproved. The Advisory Committee on the Constitution said, “It is tempting to add additional responsibilities for specific social issues; the list could become quite long. . . .Therefore the Advisory Committee on the Constitution advises the 209th GA (1997) not to approve Overture 97-4[the overture which became the Amendment].”
- H. which amends G-14.0801c regarding whether Commissioned Lay Preachers must be elders should be approved. There is currently a discrepancy in the Book of Order. In one place it requires that a Commissioned Lay Preacher be an elder. Yet, in G-14.0801c it allows a presbytery by a 3/4 vote to commission a lay pastor who is not an elder. It is crucial that we remove the option that allows the presbytery to commission a lay pastor who is NOT an elder. Since the lay pastor may perform all the functions assigned to an ordained minister including preaching and administering sacraments, this could be a back door to the pseudo-ordination of practicing homosexuals.
This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 3, No. 6 (Nov/Dec 1997).
