Analysis of Amendment O By Jim Tony Palos Park, Illinois November 2000 What stirred the 2000 General Assembly to propose another change to the Directory for Worship concerning appropriate union celebrations? That proposal has become “Amendment O.” When the Book of Order, of which the Directory for Worship is a part, is changed, careful consideration must be given to the language. Thus, the Advisory Committee on the Constitution writes commentary. Selections of that commentary are included in the background that will come with the proposed changes. The rest of it is available from the minutes of the General Assembly. The following wording of the amendment is put side by side with commentary intended to make clear the significance both of the proposed change and some of the specific background for the proposed wording. We hope this will shed some light on what is being considered by the presbyteries this year. This is also offered to put to rest some of the mistaken claims being made about this proposed change.
“W-4.9007 “Scripture	The PCUSA has explicitly agreed with this interpretation first by adopting G-6.0106b (1997) and then by declining to modify that section of the constitution (Amendment A, 1998). Scriptures cited include the passages which establish the holy union of marriage, e.g. Genesis 2, Matthew 19 and Ephesians 5. Scriptures that speak of God’s plan for singleness certainly include Matthew 5, Galatians 5 and the Old Testament expressions of the requirements laid on single people who are unchaste. Mark 7 deserves special attention because Jesus there contrasts the “traditions of men,” like hand-washing, etc., with the moral demands of the law. See especially vv. 20ff: “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’” According to Jesus himself, sexual behavior has a moral, not just a cultural or “ritual” significance, as contrasted with the acceptance of non-circumcised within the Church.
and our Confessions teach that God’s intention for all people is to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in chastity in singleness.	In addition, confessional documents have been cited by the Advisory Committee on the Constitution for the background from the confessions. It is important to note that this amendment declares what God requires, not what he prohibits. Those who wish to bless homosexual relationships need to demonstrate from the confessions and Scripture that God does in fact bless same-gender relationships. The Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC), in its comments written to the 2000 General Assembly prior to the written decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission (Hudson River), affirms the validity of this interpretation: “The confessional standards of the church (The Book of Confessions, 5.251, 7.249) clearly speak to certain relationships outside marriage as being wrong for Christians.” In fact the ACC said: “As all of its specific points are already covered by other portions of the constitution, the proposed amendment could be construed as unnecessary.” (Comment on 00-54, Charlotte) Further, in commenting on Overture 00-12 (Tampa Bay), the ACC is even clearer. The ACC states flatly, “The intent of the church, demonstrated in amendments, judicial decisions, and assembly authoritative interpretations is to prohibit any ceremony that blesses or appears to give legitimacy between same-sex couples insofar as the pastor or the session believe that the blessing is directly related to the relationship as a couple.” And it concludes, “The Advisory Committee on the Constitution believes that existing language and prohibitions currently in place prohibit the behavior (the blessing of same-sex relationships) of concern to the proponents of the changes.”
[So far this section reiterates what has always been true ...]	So what’s the problem? The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GA PJC) (Hudson River, 2000) finds that “None of the provisions of the Directory for Worship … prohibit the conduct of same-sex ceremonies that are not the same as marriage ceremonies.” Clearly the GA PJC contradicts the ACC. The GA PJC goes on to say that it “assumes that some same-sex ceremonies could be the equivalent of a marriage ceremony, and therefore, would contravene the Book of Order, and some might not.” [emphasis added] the GA PJC then continues to describe what it calls “a permissible same-sex ceremony.” And later it states directly, “A same-sex ceremony celebrates a loving, caring and committed relationship. Therefore, it would be appropriate for this worship occasion to be in the form and spirit of W-6.3010 and W-6.3011.” [emphasis added] The clash between the GA PJC and the constitutional interpretation approved by the whole denomination when it interpreted its standards to include the requirement to live either in fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness (G-6.0106b) as forthrightly interpreted by the ACC, leaves us at least in a state of constitutional confusion, if not actual crisis. The 212th GA proposed a way out by recommending Overture 00-26 from San Joaquin Presbytery. Our alternative to passing it is to stay in the confusion and crisis mode. For the sake of the unity and peace of the PCUSA, not to mention its purity, the General Assembly proposes the means to resolve this crisis. Let’s take a look at some of the important wording of the second sentence.
Church property shall not be used for, and church officers shall not take part in conducting,	The ACC stated that if the GA were to propose clarification of this matter, the Directory for Worship was the proper location for such an amendment. It was particularly concerned that the GA avoid tampering with the delicate legal language of Chapter VIII on property. That explains the introduction of “property” at this place.
any ceremony or event that pronounces blessing or gives approval of the church or invokes the blessing of God	It should be noted that the language of this amendment is designed to limit only the leadership of ceremonies that purport to provide support for relationships inconsistent with God’s design for marriage and singleness. Some have claimed that it would proscribe parents who are church officers from participating in the blessing ceremony of their son’s or daughter’s same-sex union by merely being in the congregation. That is not the intent of this overture. It states explicitly that what is prohibited is to “take part in conducting” such ceremonies.
upon any relationship that is inconsistent with God’s intention as expressed in the preceding sentence.”	Some have claimed that this amendment would prohibit pastoral care to persons of homosexual orientation. For instance, it is claimed that a minister could not perform a funeral for a same-gender partner who has died. But amendment is careful to state that it is the blessing or approval of a any relationship inconsistent with God’s intention of fidelity and chastity. A funeral service does not provide approval for a relationship, but celebrates the life of a person and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It should be noted that the Advisory Committee on the Constitution is also careful to use the word “relationship” to declare, “The confessional standards of the church (Book of Confessions, 5.251, 7.249) clearly speak to certain relationships outside marriage as being wrong for Christians.” [emphasis added] And finally, please note that the amendment does not single out homosexual relationships alone for prohibition but any relationship that is “otherwise than as God’s Word allows” in the words of the historic wedding service of the Book of Common Worship (1946). Some are now claiming that this short paragraph would limit the ability of ministers to marry people who are living together prior to marriage. But unless that relationship is the one being blessed or given approval, that claim is without foundation.
Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links