• Try to remove the constitutional prohibition (G-6.0106b). But that direct action has failed a number of times. It gets embarrassing and demoralizing to lose that bad that often.
• Try to convince people that the words don’t mean what they say; that “you can’t” surprisingly means “you can.” Slick attempts along these lines have garnered only scattered success.
• Try to remove the authoritative interpretation that so clearly states what Presbyterians have always practiced. That effort failed for three decades, but then did get accomplished last summer. However, by itself, the removal may not be decisive.
• Try to get a compliant General Assembly to decree that even though the Book of Order has standards, an ordaining body can simply waive any such standards it doesn’t consider significant. That way, you have rules, but you can ignore them. That was the tack taken in 2006, but the Permanent Judicial Commission has crushed it as a strategy.

 So far, nothing has worked for the revisionists, so they are left to a new device: Try to substitute for unwanted constitutional language innocuous-sounding language that would actually allow one to ordain whomever one wants. Perhaps a sly, subtle constitutional amendment can smuggle the change past unsuspecting Presbyterians.
 
This new method is what confronts presbyteries this year in votes on Amendment 08-B, a reversal of the “fidelity and chastity” ordination standard in our Book of Order. 

Religious-speak

A close look at the sentence structure and verbs of the proposed amendment, however, reveals two flaws for a text intended to set standards. First, the language of the amendment is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Second, the verbs are indicative rather than imperative. The result would be religious-speak with no weight of authority, no standards set.
 
Here is the proposed replacement text: 

Descriptive, not prescriptive

The sentences describe an assumed reality. They say what supposedly is the situation, namely that those called pledge themselves by assenting to questions, they strive to follow and understand, and they declare their fidelity. Governing bodies establish sincere efforts on the part of ordinands. Notice how this kind of wording simply describes a situation. The sentences outline assumptions, not standards.
 
The sentences do not say what must be. They do not prescribe what has to take place.
 
In a section of the Book of Order intended to give counsel on who can and should be ordained, would one not expect some standards to be set? Does anything go? This language declares that the ordinands apparently have pledged to be obedient to Jesus Christ, but it fails to stipulate that ordinands must be obedient. It is language that bends over backward to avoid setting the very standards that would lead to clarity, understanding and trust.
 
When a presbytery or session turns to the Book of Order for guidance, it needs more than airy descriptions of what apparently is true of ordinands in general. Ordaining bodies need to know what particular standards apply to the beliefs and practices of those being considered for ordination. A civil statute would be of little use if it read “After borrowing money, a borrower repays a lender,” rather than “A borrower is required to repay a lender according to contract.”

Indicative, not imperative

In a similar manner, the amendment’s verbs are studiously set in the indicative mood rather than the imperative. The indicative says, “You are doing this.” The imperative, on the other hand, would say, “You shall do this,” or just, “Do this!”
 
Notice how the ordinands “pledge,” “strive,” “understand,” and “declare” – all indicative verbs. There is not a “must pledge” or “shall strive” or “must demonstrate understanding of” or “are required to declare” among the verbs.
 
Similarly, the ordaining body has no requirements. It is simply reported that the governing body “establishes” sincere efforts by the ordinands; it is not told that it shall establish that sincere efforts have actually been made.
 
Amendment 08-B was written so that clear standards would disappear and governing bodies could do whatever they choose to do. The amendment’s purposefully vague language about being “obedient to Jesus” might hoodwink the unsuspecting into thinking the amendment is serious and faithful. It is not.
 
Amendment 08-B is a crafty vehicle to gain by subterfuge what could not be gained directly: an unimpaired road to the ordination of persons not willing to live by the Biblical standard of “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.”