| An investigation of what our constitution now says |
| Written by Winfield Casey Jones | ||||
| Tuesday, 10 May 2011 16:14 | ||||
|
Summary: Sessions and presbyteries may still reject for ordination or installation (on a case-by-case basis) candidates for the offices of elder, deacon and minister of Word and Sacrament who do not live in fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness. The PC(USA) has removed a national ordination standard for church officers calling for “living in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” and has changed it to a requirement for “joyfully submitting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.” This action removed a national standard categorically prohibiting the ordination of persons in sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman, but it by no means requires that such persons be ordained or installed as officers. How then are sessions (when examining elders and deacons) and presbyteries (when examining candidates or those transferring from other presbyteries) for the office of minister of Word and Sacrament to determine whether these examinees are qualified for these offices? And, the national fidelity/chastity standard having been done away with, may local governing bodies still make judgments based on an interpretation of Scripture and of our confessions which uphold the necessity of fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness? (The short answer is “yes”.) Remember the question is no longer whether sessions and presbyteries must reject persons failing to live in “fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” but whether they may continue to do so (on a case-by-case basis). The answer to this question is found in Parts I and II of our Constitution. Our Book of Order Our Form of Government says at G-6.0106a that those who are called to be officers must be “persons of strong faith, dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus Christ as Savior. Their manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and the world. They must have the approval of God’s people and the concurring judgment of a governing body of the church.” Also new G-6.0106 b says officers must be found to be “joyfully submitting to the Lordship of Christ.” So, according to our Book of Order, sessions and presbyteries examining officers need to make decisions about the following Constitutional issues which pertain to lifestyle: Questions an examining body must answer about officers
Resources for answering these questions–Scripture and our confessions There are manifold scriptural resources for affirming that God’s will for the human exercise of God’s gift of sexuality is either fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness. The purpose of this article is not to list all of these Scriptures, although many of them are quoted (or footnoted) in the selections from Part I of our Constitution, the Book of Confessions which I will cite below. Portions of Part I of our Constitution (Book of Confessions) relating to fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness Q. 108. What does the seventh commandment teach us? A. That all unchastity is 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. B.C. 4.108 Comment: Here the Heidelberg Catechism tells us that the Seventh Commandment teaches us to live chaste lives and that the only options for a person to be chaste are holy wedlock or a single life. (For confessional definitions of marriage or holy wedlock, see below.) Marriage For marriage (which is the medicine of incontinency, and continency itself) was instituted by the Lord God himself, who blessed it most bountifully, and willed man and woman to cleave one to the other inseparably, and to live together in complete love and concord (Matt. 19:4 ff). Whereupon we know that the apostle said: “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled” (Heb. 13:4). B.C. 5.246 Comment: Here the Second Helvetic Confession makes clear that marriage reflects God’s desire that a man and a woman cleave together. Of Marriage and Divorce 1. Christian marriage is an institution ordained of God, blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ, established and sanctified for the happiness and welfare of mankind, into which spiritual and physical union one man and one woman enter, cherishing a mutual esteem and love, bearing with each other’s infirmities and weaknesses, comforting each other in trouble, providing in honesty and industry for each other and for their household, praying for each other, and living together the length of their days as heirs of the grace of life.” B.C. 6.131 Comment: Here the United Presbyterian Church USA amended the Westminister Confession, and this amendment is now part of our Constitution. . This amendment makes clear that marriage is between one man and one woman. Of Marriage and Divorce 1. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman, designed of God to last so long as they both shall live.1 2. Marriage is designed for the mutual help of husband and wife; 2 for the safeguarding, undergirding, and development of their moral and spiritual character; 3 for the propagation of children and the rearing of them in the discipline. B.C.6. 133, 6.134 Comment: Here the PCUS amended the Westminister Confession and this amendment is now part of our Constitution. . This amendment makes clear that marriage is between one man and one woman and that one purpose of marriage is the propagation of children. (Over twenty scriptures are cited in the footnotes) Reconciliation in Society d. The relationship between man and woman exemplifies in a basic way God’s ordering of the interpersonal life for which he created mankind. Anarchy in sexual relationships is a symptom of man’s alienation from God, his neighbor, and himself. Man’s perennial confusion about the meaning of sex has been aggravated in our day by the availability of new means for birth control and the treatment of infection, by the pressures of urbanization, by the exploitation of sexual symbols in mass communication, and by world overpopulation. The church, as the household of God, is called to lead men out of this alienation into the responsible freedom of the new life in Christ. Reconciled to God, each person has joy in and respect for his own humanity and that of other persons; a man and woman are enabled to marry, to commit themselves to a mutually shared life, and to respond to each other in sensitive and lifelong concern; parents receive the grace to care for children in love and to nurture their individuality. The church comes under the judgment of God and invites rejection by man when it fails to lead men and women into the full meaning of life together, or withholds the compassion of Christ from those caught in the moral confusion of our time.” B.C. 9.47 Here the Confession of 1967 makes clear: The relationship between a man and a woman exemplifies God’s ordering of interpersonal life. Humanity’s “perennial confusion about the meaning of sex has been aggravated in our day.” In the responsible freedom of the new life in Christ, “ a man and a woman are enabled to marry.” The church comes under the judgment of God and invites rejection by man when it fails to lead men and women into the full meaning of life together, or withholds the compassion of Christ from those caught in the moral confusion of our time.” Clearly, the confessional statements above, (especially when read together and not separately) in their interpretation of Holy Scripture, contain more than ample reason for any governing body, in good conscience, to conclude that fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness is God’s command and therefore necessary for church officers in order that they exhibit “dedicated discipleship” (G-6.0106a), in order that they display a “manner of life” which is a “demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and the world” (G-6.0106a) and in order that that they show they are “submitting to the Lordship of Christ” (G-6.0106b) (For those who wish to draw a different conclusion, there is nothing in Part I of our Constitution that I know of which supports same gender sex or sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Therefore on Constitutional grounds, even after the passage of amendment 10-A, those favoring the ordination/installation of sexually active GLBT persons have a much harder Constitutional case to make than those who oppose such ordinations.) Had the proponents of the ordination to church office of sexually active persons in same gender relationships been required to add a provision favoring this to our Book of Confessions, they would have needed a 2/3rds vote of the presbyteries, which is presumably one reason why they did not choose this route. Lacking such an amendment to the Book of Confessions, advocates of GLBT ordination “as a right” are on very weak ground, since the overwhelming weight of our confessions affirms that sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful and therefore supports governing bodies denying ordination to those involved in same gender sex on the basis of G-6.0106a and (new) G.6.0106b. Moreover the confessions contain no statement that this activity is acceptable to God. For that to be changed advocates of GLBT ordination “as a denomination-wide right” would, at the very least, need to amend Part I of our Constitution, the Book of Confessions, to add a provision saying that same gender sex is not a sin, and arguably they would need also to strike or amend—via 2/3 rd’s vote of the presbyteries, most of the confessional statements listed above. ************* Postscript: I believe the argument above is complete and adequate in itself, and may in some cases be weakened by what follows, while in other cases it may be strengthened. ************** Three portions of the Book of Confessions appear to make direct reference to same gender sex. While these references by themselves may not be dispositive, I believe they may in some cases strengthen the argument above. B.C. 7.249 (the Larger Catechism) says that the Seventh Commandment (against adultery) applies to “fornication,” and “sodomy and unnatural affections.” The reference to sodomy” and unnatural affections.” contains as a scripture footnote referencing Romans 1:26-27. Romans 1:26-27 is one of the main scriptures in the homosexuality debate. I have heard this section of the Catechism ridiculed on the floor of a presbytery meeting because it also says the Seventh Commandment also prohibits “keeping stews” or “resorting to stews.” The person doing the ridiculing apparently did not know that a stew is a brothel. This section of the Catechism has also been ridiculed because it mentions “undue delay of marriage.” The point however is that the reference to sodomy in the Catechism and the reference to Romans 1:26-27 does not stand by itself but is part of the fabric of a much larger and broader confessional argument (about which all governing bodies must now make their own decision) that God in scripture commands either marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness. B. B.C. 4.087 (Heidelberg Catechism) says: Question 87. Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful, impenitent life be saved? Answer 87. Certainly not! Scripture says, “Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.” Answer 87 is a quotation of 1 Corinthians 6:9. With this precise wording, it was part of the Plan of Reunion under which the UPCUSA and the PCUS came together in 1983, and it received the votes of approximately 90 percent of the presbyteries. This Catechism’s answer is clearly a quote from 1 Corinthians 6:9, and the reference to homosexual perversion is an accurate translation of the Greek arsenokoitai and malakoi. (See NRSV, “male prostitutes, sodomites;” NIV, “male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders:” New Century Version, “ male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men;” New American Standard, “effeminate, nor homosexuals”). It has been argued of course that the English wording in our Constitution does not reflect the original Latin and German of the Heidelberg Catechism, a catechism, after all, designed for children, which probably softened and consolidated the Greek New Testament language of 1 Corinthians 6:9 under the rubric of “sexual immorality.” Since the PC(USA) does not use the Heidelberg Catechism for its children, and since in any case modern day American children are exposed to the concept of homosexuality, the PC(USA) will have to decide in our own case whether the language in Answer 87 of the confession should be left as it is (faithful to the Greek New Testament of 1 Corinthians 6:9) or else restored to a more faithful translation of the original confession (so as not to offend 16th century children). However the current language of the confession is authoritative unless and until two General Assemblies and 2/3rds of the presbyteries vote to amend it, perhaps especially since it was part of the Plan of Reunion between the PCUS and the PCUSA in1983 and was a very clear statement then to both sides about the sinfulness of homosexual practice. Clearly it reflected the opinion of the church at the time of reunion, and today two-thirds of the presbyteries would have to vote to change it. C. As stated above, the Confession of 1967 at B.C. 9.47 makes clear: The relationship between a man and a woman exemplifies God’s ordering of interpersonal life. Humanity’s “perennial confusion about the meaning of sex has been aggravated in our day.” In the responsible freedom of the new life in Christ, “a man and a woman are enabled to marry.” The church comes under the judgment of God and invites rejection by man when it fails to lead men and women into the full meaning of life together, or withholds the compassion of Christ from those caught in the moral confusion of our time.” It can be reasonably argued that these last three confessional statements (along with the Scriptures they quote and reference) taken together, at least begin to make a case against same gender sex in Part I of our Constitution. At the same time it must be said that no hint of an argument for same gender sex is present in our confessions. Conclusion: A rule of scriptural interpretation since at least the time of Augustine has been to “compare scripture with scripture.” A similar rule should be used with our Book of Confessions (which after all is intended to summarize Scripture.) When one compares and looks at all the confessional statements listed in this whole document, it is quite clear that sessions and presbyteries whose interpretation of Scripture and the confessions is that God desires sexuality to be exercised only in marriage between a man and a woman have strong grounds when examining candidates for office or officers ordained by other governing bodies to conclude that same gender sex or lack of fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman by an examinee do not exhibit “dedicated discipleship” (G-6.0106a), display a “manner of life” which is a “demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and the world” (G-6.0106a) or indicate that the person is “submitting to the Lordship of Christ” (G-6.0106b). The ACC and the GAPJC may remind us that such decisions are to be made at the time of examination, but governing bodies may make these decisions again and again. They have very strong constitutional grounds for doing so. The constitutional/confessional grounds for ordination or installation of those departing from this understanding are exponentially more unclear. Winfield Casey Jones is pastor of First Church of Pearland, Texas, and was a candidate for GA stated clerk in 2000 and 2008. He may be reached at wrjones2002@yahoo.com. This article may not be printed pending an exclusive print publication, but it can be emailed and posted electronically. Your Responses (2)
John McWilliams
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Naples, Florida This is an excellent article. It should serve as a blueprint for the first remedial case filed against a session or presbytery for ordaining someone who is a practicing, non-repentant, self-affirming homosexual brother or sister. I can tell you one thing. There are no Presbyterian police. Unless cases are filed based on information like that provided by Pastor Jones, NOTHING will be done. It's that simple. |
Ross Slaughter
said:
|
Cuyahoga Falls, OH This is helpful material and I appreciate this look into the confessions. However, this does not allow those who are of the mind that marriage between a man and a woman is the legitimate relationship for sexual intimacy. We are only "guided" by our confessions. There is crystallization of this stance found in the confessions in our church polity any longer. No authoritative interpretation, since that has been handily disposed of. There is no clear word on the matter since the former wording G-6.0106b has been erased clean. Soon, language in the Book of Order will be sanitized (in accordance with the Baltimore overture) when we meet in Pittsburgh next Summer. An ordaining body may well raise these points. It becomes a matter of competing "interpretations" of scripture and confessions from a former (bygone) time; and a power play of who has the most votes and skill of parliamentary procedure at any given meeting. |
Write a Response
