‘Fidelity and chastity’ will be debated at GA An analysis by Robert P. Mills The Presbyterian Layman Friday, March 26, 1999 Three presbyteries have sent to the Fort Worth General Assembly overtures concerning the “fidelity and chastity” clause of the PCUSA constitution. One overture proposes removing the provision (G-6.0106b) from the Book of Order. The other two would render it unenforceable. First out of the box was Milwaukee Presbytery. Overture 99-2 seeks to strike G-6.0106b from the Book of Order. The same overture from the same presbytery was defeated at the Charlotte Assembly in 1998. An Amendment A clone Overture 99-27 from St. Andrew Presbytery would amend G-6.0106b to read: “Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture and instructed by the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness. Candidates for ordained office shall acknowledge their own sinfulness, their need of repentance and their reliance on the grace and mercy of God to fulfill the duties of their office.” This language is almost identical to that of Amendment A, which lost 2-1 in the presbyteries. The most significant difference between St. Andrew/Amendment A and the current constitutional language is the proposed elimination of the phrase, “Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.” As was frequently observed in the Amendment A debate, this change would make enforcing G-6.0106b impossible. Undefined essentials Philadelphia Presbytery has offered the most sophisticated attempt to undermine the current constitutional language. Mixing current constitutional language with that of Amendment A, its Overture 99-30 adds a new twist by replacing “which the confessions call sin” with “which departs from the essentials of the Reformed faith and policy.” Since past General Assemblies have refused to identify any tenets of Reformed faith as “essential,” it would become the responsibility of various presbytery and synod permanent judicial commissions to offer initial rulings on which unspecified behaviors departed from the constitution’s undefined essentials. Inevitably, these decisions would be reviewed by the GA PJC, most of whose members are on record as supporting the ordination of self-affirming practicing homosexuals. Achieving Amendment A’s goal With Milwaukee’s effort to delete “fidelity and chastity” altogether, the way is clear for the radical revisions suggested by St. Andrew and Philadelphia to be hailed as “moderate.” Should the Fort Worth General Assembly approve any of these initiatives, presbyteries will again find themselves debating issues they have repeatedly decided. Should the presbyteries approve such drastic revisions, pro-gay-ordination supporters would have achieved Amendment A’s goal of making G-6.0106b unenforceable.

The Presbyterian Layman March/April 1999

Home · Archives ·News History of the Lay Committee ·Feedback Online Reviews ·Resources ·Links