Is Amendment A the middle way?
An analysis by Robert P. Mills, The Layman Online, August 21, 2001
The PCUSA’s 173 presbyteries will soon be voting on yet another attempt to undermine the denomination’s ordination standards. As was the case in 1997, this proposal again will be known as Amendment A.
This year’s version, Amendment 01-A seeks to accomplish three goals:
- Remove G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” ordination standard from our Book of Order;
- Add language to G-6.0106a that would make ordination standards a matter of local option; and
- Replace the current Authoritative Interpretation of the constitution, which forbids the ordination of self-affirming, practicing homosexuals, with a new interpretation, one that explicitly permits such ordinations.
The presbytery vote will be on the entire package; the items cannot be considered individually. Thus, in the words of “lesbian evangelist” Jane Spahr, by approving Amendment 01-A the Louisville Assembly gave pro-gay activists “the whole enchilada.”
Middle ground?
Curiously, Spahr’s assessment is contradicted by Deborah Block and Laird Stuart, co-moderators of the Covenant Network, an organization that, according to its website, “was founded in August, 1997 to support the passage of Amendment (97)-A.”
In the Network’s August, 2001 newsletter, Block and Stuart describe Amendment 01-A as “the long-sought middle ground on this difficult issue.”
So which is it? The whole enchilada? Or middle ground, a compromise that gives neither side what it ultimately wants?
That question will be easier to answer after looking at a few of the constitutional conflicts created by the proposed amendment.
Constitutional conflicts
If a majority of the presbyteries votes in favor of Amendment 01-A, the PCUSA constitution would contradict itself on at least three points.
First, the local option provision of the new G-6.0106a would contradict G-14.0401, which declares, “Ordination for the office of minister of the Word and Sacrament is an act of the whole church carried out by the presbytery” (emphasis added).
If local option becomes mandatory, a minister’s ordination may or may not be deemed valid outside the ordaining presbytery. It is easy to see the conflict this will create between presbyteries and congregations within their bounds that hold to opposing standards.
Less visible, but potentially more divisive, will be the impact on the upper governing bodies. If some ministers’ ordinations are not universally recognized, will those ministers have standing to serve as commissioners to synod and General Assembly?
If so, that requires all presbyteries to accept the validity of ordaining gays and lesbians as ministers of Word and sacrament. If not, constitutional chaos will result as, since actions of an illegitimately constituted governing body would be considered null and void.
Radical principles
Second, local option would mean that congregations could decide that women were not qualified to serve as elders. This would cause a conflict between the proposed G-6.0106a, which declares that candidates’ “suitability to hold office is determined by the governing body where the examination for ordination or installation takes place, guided by scriptural and constitutional standards, under the authority and Lordship of Jesus Christ,” and G-14.0201, “Every congregation shall elect men and women … to the office of elder and to the office of deacon” (emphasis added).
Guided by Scripture and under the authority and Lordship of Jesus Christ, a session might discern that it is unsuitable for women to hold church office. This position can be supported from Scripture and is practiced in large segments of the Church. Moreover, since sessions are only to be “guided” by such constitutional standards as the “shall” of G-14.0201, their decision in the matter would be final.
The finality of their decision highlights the third area of constitutional conflict. For in giving the ordaining governing body sole discretion, adopting Amendment 01-A would overturn one of “the radical principles of Presbyterian church government,” specifically, “that a larger part of the Church, or a representation of it, should govern a smaller, or determine matters of controversy which arise therein; that, in like manner, a representation of the whole should govern and determine in regard to every part, and to all the parts united; that is, that a majority shall govern; and consequently that appeals may be carried from lower to higher governing bodies” (G-1.0400).
Adopting Amendment 01-A would leave no grounds for a higher governing body to review any decision to ordain, or not ordain, an individual. There could be no appeal from lower to higher governing bodies. The connectionalism of the denomination, already crumbling from the lack of theological consensus, would be further eroded by such a radical revision of historic Presbyterian polity.
The rest of the enchilada
Now we may reconsider the Covenant Network’s assertion that these radical steps are “the middle way.” If this is the middle, what else could the Network want? Where is the rest of its enchilada?
In Presbyterian parlance, it could only be the anticipated move from may to should to shall. What is now portrayed as permissive (“It neither requires nor prohibits ordination of homosexual Presbyterians” in the words of Block and Stuart) will be deemed desirable then made mandatory. Those who now advocate “the middle way” will insist that everyone go all the way. That is the rest of the enchilada.
If Amendment 01-A is approved, it will not take long for its proponents to acknowledge the constitutional conflicts demonstrated above, conflicts they so far have been content to ignore. Pro-gay activists certainly will rediscover G-14.0401 and insist that ordination is an act of the whole church, therefore the whole church must ordain homosexuals.
However, many congregations that have joined the Confessing Church Movement have declared that they will not ordain or employ gays or lesbians. The stage thus will be set for a showdown that will make previous ordination standard debates seem like tea parties.
Polity or morality?
This analysis has focused on polity because that is where Amendment 01-A supporters have concentrated their arguments. The larger issue, of course, is God’s demand that his people live holy lives.
Writing to Christians who were being pressured to conform to their culture, Peter challenged his flock, “As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy'” (I Peter 1:14-16).
Ideally, polity is an aid to holiness. Historically, the Church has tried to structure its common life in ways that help its members live holy lives. But today, as in Peter’s day, God’s people are under pressure to conform their lives to the pattern of this world. And, as in Peter’s day, some of that pressure is coming from people who should know better. On polity grounds alone Amendment 01-A is deeply flawed and should be defeated.
But as a matter of morality, because it rejects the standards God has established and mocks God’s call for his people to be holy, Amendment 01-A must be decisively rejected.