What about Purity? J. William Giles Birmingham, Alabama November 2000 Each morning I rise at daybreak for a two-mile trek through our neighborhood. These jaunts through suburbia are designed to keep both my wife and my physician happy. They also offer a brief time for uninterrupted thought and reflection. Recent excursions have found me reflecting upon the word “purity” in a Biblical/theological context. Purity is a word which used to be an important part of our Presbyterian vocabulary. Presbyterian “divines” of an earlier day fought some hard battles over what constitutes “pure doctrine” and a “pure Church,” battles which continue even today. We hear, and use, words like diversity, justice, inclusion, grace, love, unity and peace. However, I hear very little, if any, use of the word “purity” in our current corporate discussions. I suppose its because purity is one of those “fluid” words, the definition of which depends largely upon who is using, and thus defining, it at the moment. At the time of our ordination we are required to answer, in the affirmative, the question: “Do you promise to further the peace, unity and purity of the Church?” In recent years we have talked a lot about furthering the peace and unity of the Church. I do not, however, hear much conversation taking place, across the Church, about furthering its purity. What is a “pure” Church? What is “pure” doctrine? Because of its imperfect building materials, I seriously doubt we will in this life see a “pure” Church. Pure doctrine may, however, be another matter. In this context I have recently re-read Jude’s enlightening little essay in defense of the “faith once delivered.” His very blunt treatise is directed against those within the Church who plainly appeared to be perverting the grace of God into an excuse for blatant immorality. In our current debate over sexuality, ordination and “holy unions,” we would do well to take a closer look at Jude’s counsel. For many of us, as it was with Jude, this is an issue that revolves around the authority of Scripture and is, therefore, a decidedly doctrinal, rather than a cultural or political, issue. A lot of Presbyterians would be well advised to study again this largely overlooked little letter in the New Testament. Several years ago Wolfhart Pannenberg, the eminent German theologian, in an essay on Scripture and homosexuality, wrote: “The Biblical assessments of homosexual practice are unambiguous in their rejection, and all its statements on this subject agree without exception.” Pannenberg later closes his essay saying: “Here lies the boundary of a Christian Church that knows itself to be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the Church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a Church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the Biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a Church would stand no longer on Biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A Church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” Something to think about!! We will probably never agree on what constitutes a pure Church or pure doctrine. When, however, we stop striving to do so, therein lies our demise as the Church of Jesus Christ.

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links