Editor’s Note, November 7, 2008: As Presbyterians consider presbytery action on G-6.0106b, the OUTLOOK makes this statement of clarification: Mike Loudon’s essay, “Let the PUP Report Work” (pub. Nov. 3, 2008), states that that report “called for the retention of the present ordination standards. …” To be exact, the report “encourage[d] the 217th General Assembly (2006) to approve” no changes “…that would have the effect of changing denominational policy on any of the major issues in the task force’s report. …”  The rationale of the report explains, “In order to assess whether the ways forward we have proposed are effective in promoting peace, unity, and purity, it seems advisable to all members of the task force, whatever their personal positions on issues, that the task force’s recommendations be considered and weighed in a spirit of discernment, and that they also be given an opportunity to work. … We believe it would create confusion and further conflict to attempt to make major constitutional changes to section G-6.0106 or on other controversial issues before the church has reacquainted itself with the time-tested principles of the proposed authoritative interpretation” (p. 43). The report did not express any opinion regarding possible policy changes that might be considered by subsequent General Assemblies.

 Re:  Loudon/Wheeler Forum (pub. Nov. 3, 2008)

Mike Loudon (“Let the PUP Report work,”) urges a return to pre-G-60106b “scruple” days. But that was before homosexual ordination became an issue. To insure conformity to “fidelity and chastity,” this escape hatch for objectors was removed.  Mike thinks it should be restored as a means of achieving Peace, Unity, and Purity. Has PUP accomplished these elusive ideals? Letters to the Outlook indicate otherwise.

But the issue that concerns me is not procedure but theology. What should determine belief and practice, Scripture or culture? Instead of critiquing culture in the light of Scripture, Barbara Wheeler [“Why not replace (or retain) G-6.0106b] and her ilk seem to be reinterpreting Scripture to support unbiblical cultural norms. That is why I believe the presbyteries should vote to retain the thrice-affirmed ordination standards of G-60106b.

Joe Hopkins
New Wilmington, Pa.

Thanks to Mike Loudon for his excellent article, which raises a question: During the 250 years that scrupling was allowed, were there any recorded instances in which a minister was ordained after scrupling a requirement of personal conduct? None is given in the rationale supporting Recommendation 5 of the PUP report.

Also, The Report of the Special Committee on Historic Principles, Conscience, and Church Government Minutes, 1983, pp. 141-58) indicates that such scrupling was not permitted: (1) “The situation regarding the requirements and prohibitions of the Form of Government is different; because polity often requires compliance in behavior, whereas the confessional standards may not.” Ibid., p. 155) (2) “The fact that the church permits diversity of theological beliefs but in many areas requires uniformity of practice does not exalt polity over theology.” Ibid., p. 156) (3) “Therefore freedom of conscience is not abridged by the requirements of our Constitution.” Ibid., p.158).

Going still further back, The Westminster Confession states that the purpose of freedom of conscience is destroyed by those who use it to practice any sin. (6.110)

This is an important question of fact, because the PUP authoritative interpretation (AI), the 2008 AI that nullified the 1978 and 79 interpretations, and the 2008 AI that attempts to override the Bush decision, are all based on it.    

Warren Herron

Atlanta, Ga.