A Perplexed Conservative Churchman:

For years now, we in the Presbyterian Church, (USA), have been debating the issues surrounding the ordination of gay and lesbian persons.  This has been well chronicled, even on this blog. 

 

About ten years ago, when I was a minister in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church, (USA), the denomination to which I have now returned, added to its Book of Order the "Fidelity and Chastity" amendment.  This amendment requires a candidate for ordination to office in the PC(USA) to live in fidelity if married, and in chastity if single.  I believe that this standard of behavior should be practiced by the ordained officers of the PC(USA), or of any other church body, for that matter,  and should be upheld, not just by the ordained officers, but by all Christians.  Our own Session has affirmed as much; and the statement we adopted can be found in the archives of this very blog.  But here's my problem.

 

This amendment to the Book of Order singles out one behavior or one condition or lifestyle--namely sexual morality.  We have nothing comparable in the Book of Order relative to lying, stealing, drunkenness, cursing, or any of the other Ten Commandments or inappropriate behavior.  It's no wonder that the issue became so divisive. The gay and lesbian activists were bound to continue to make it a political cause in the church, just as they have made their movement a political cause in society at large. (And although the amendment clearly applies to heterosexual immorality, the impetus was clearly targeted at the gay and lesbian community.) 

 

I believe presbyteries should certainly have the right to reject people they find unfit for ordination--on theological or moral grounds.  But by singling out one particular type of behavior, the denomination was asking for trouble. 

 

Would it not have been better to put an amendment in the Book of Order to the effect that persons seeking ordination are expected to live in a manner that "becomes the followers of Christ," or some such language?  Don't get me wrong.  I would not favor affirming homosexuality as an alternate or acceptable lifestyle, or inserting language in the Book of Order that would require presbyteries to make no discrimination based on sexual orientation.  I would want to have the right, as a presbyter, to vote against ordaining or receiving into my presbytery, someone who was not living in accord with biblical sexual morality.  But by making such a calculated attempt to aim this provision so specifically in one direction, the tumult in the church  simply has been perpetuated.

 

I've only heard one other person make this argument, though I'm sure it must have been made by others at the time the amendment was originally adopted.    And it may well be that I'm missing a salient point here.   If so, I'm sure somebody will make me aware of it.

 

Even if I have a valid point, the issues have become so politicized, divisive, and entrenched now that it's unlikely the damage can be reversed.  But at some future General Assembly, perhaps a new kind of wisdom will make itself known.  Even from a conservative viewpoint, however, I can see an argument for modifying the current amendment.  It seems that whatever point of view a person adopts about certain issues, there always is a desire to enforce that point of view. We want the federal government or the General Assembly or the "higher-ups," whoever they may be in a particular context, to mind their own business--until it's in our best interest for them to step in and require or forbid whatever  we want to be required or forbidden.  I'm only asking in the present case:  Wasn't there a better way to do this that would have accomplished much the same objective?  I consider myself a conservative churchman; but sometimes, I am a perplexed conservative churchman--which is probably a good thing.  It proves I'm not mindlessly following any one group or organization.