In January Dr. Paul Capetz, professor of theology at United Theological Seminary in the Twin Cities of Minnesota, was restored to the exercise of ordained ministry by action of the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area. As a gay man, he had laid aside his ordination in 2000, in response to the adoption of the “fidelity and chastity” requirement.   [Scroll down for background.]

Dr. Paul Capetz, who was restored to ordained ministry just three weeks ago by action of the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area, has written this very personal comment (slightly edited) in response to friends who have been contacting him to express their concern and support.

[2-18-08]

Since many of you have expressed concern for me these past few days since the PJC handed down its ruling which portends to overturn the presbytery's decision to restore me to ordained office, I send you these observations and thoughts.

Frankly, I just haven't been answering my phone – I haven't got the energy even to talk with people. I'm feeling punched in the gut by the church – waiting for the PJC to overturn the presbytery's decision restoring me to ordained minister – I can't begin to put together into words all my thoughts and feelings – sheer disbelief and outrage may be close to the mark.

I never would have requested to be restored if I hadn't been completely convinced from a close reading of the PUP report that was adopted as AI by the GA in 2006 that this was a completely legal thing to do. Moreover, the Committee on Ministry and the presbytery would never have gone through such a lengthy and complicated process had not everyone believed that this was in accord with the polity. Furthermore, the COM and presbytery were so careful to do everything "decently and in order" so that no missteps were taken.

And now this? What does it mean? I can't help but think that the members of the PUP taskforce must be feeling completely betrayed. And I can't help but think that it's just a matter of time before the presbytery's decision in my case is overturned.

I didn’t think it was possible for my estimate of the church to sink any lower than it already was. It's been 30 years since the 1978 San Diego GA first adopted its "Definitive Guidance" after accepting the Task Force's "minority report" and rejecting the "majority report." And after 30 years nothing in this church has changed with respect to gay people. Unbelievable. I wish you could have been there at the presbytery meeting when I was answering questions and engaging in debate. Aside from the complete ignorance about the Reformed tradition evident on the part of those who wanted to maintain an absolute ban, there is a total unwillingness on their part even to acknowledge the human pain inflicted on people by their policies.

The other day I thought to myself, "Behind all this there is a real lovelessness toward people – these guys do not love human beings as human beings." I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of psychoanalytic explanation would account for what is going on: a deep discomfort with their own sexuality and I am the projected image of their fears and anxieties. Or a Nietzschean resentment toward all persons who dare to live life out of their strengths and passions. Something utterly bizarre and evil is at work here.

We have reported recently on the action by the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area, restoring Dr. Paul Capetz to his former status as an ordained minister.  One very helpful response has come from Lynne Reade, a retired attorney and former member of the Witherspoon board. She deals specifically with the urging by opponents of Capetz’ restoration, that every portion of the Book of Order that contains the word “shall” be regarded as an “essential,” and therefore not subject to claims of "scruples" or "departures."

She writes:

The report said that a minority wanted the presbytery to “find that portions of the Book of Order using the word ‘shall’ must be seen as ‘essential’ to the expression of the Christian Faith embodied by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” The minority report lost, but this way of thinking has come up before and needs to be dealt with. Perhaps if the minority realized how frequently the word “shall” is used in the Book of Order, they would not confuse it with “essential”. 

I recently did a word count of the number of times “shall” appears in the Book of Order. I came up with 1388. (The computer says 1607 but that includes things like appendices, etc.) Surely there are not that many Presbyterian “essentials”!

Many “shalls” in the Book of Order are important or necessary for orderly operation but, even so, they are not the same as “essentials” of Christian faith.

I may have missed a few “shalls” in my count of 1388. Let’s have a contest among Witherspoon members to see who gets something different. (Only the “shalls” included in the Form of Government, Directory of Worship, and Book of Order for 2007-2009 count.) Each member submitting a number should identify himself or herself. Then, at the next meeting of Witherspoon Society in San Jose in June, we can celebrate their contribution to the theological debates!

Lynne Reade
Fremont, California
January 28, 2008

A tongue-in-cheek addition from our Issues Analyst, Gene TeSelle, who says Lynne Reade's comments are "great," but adds this:

One quibble.  The overture from Cherokee Presbytery asks that essentials be identified by the use of terms such as "shall," "is/are to be," and "requirement."  These other terms might increase the count of essentials to an even higher number.  We need to be sure that the Great Debate over essentials adheres scrupulously to all the mandates of the Book of Order.

If you have comments or insights into this very important action by one presbytery, please send a note, so we can share it here!

As background material for the discussion on Paul Capetz’ application for restoration to the ordained ministry, the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area posted a number of resources. If you are pursuing the issue of ordination and “departures,” or “scruples,” these might be helpful.

First, the following items were written by Dr. Capetz to the Presbytery, for various purposes:

Three other items were posted with this explanation from the Presbytery:

In particular, we commend to you the three papers written by Dr. Capetz and referenced in his statement of departure. This material is posted solely to help you better understand Dr. Capetz’s rationale for his request, not to advocate for it, and no material by anyone other than Dr. Capetz will be posted.

A Prayer of Confession    [1-30-08]

This prayer was part of the liturgy for the service of communion held at the beginning of the afternoon session.  The Rev. Kimberly Goodman, a member of the Presbytery, commented later,  “I found myself rereading it several times, lingering. . .”   Your WebWeaver felt the same way, so here it is. 

We come to Thee, O Christ, confessing to Thee the fears that twist our lives and keep us from the inner calm and peace that come from Thee:

      The fear of ourselves, that we cannot do what is expected of us;

      The fear of being found out for our littleness and pride in ourselves;

      The fear of being left out when joy and richness come to others;

      The fear of not being ready when opportunities present themselves for service;

The fear of death, that when it comes our time to die, we shall not have done the things we would have done, because we were afraid to venture out.

We find ourselves shrinking back before the unknown, wanting assurance where we must have faith;

We find ourselves hesitating to follow Thee, O Christ, afraid the cost may be too great, and life may pass us by.

Give us the strength and peace that only Thou canst give.

Rachael Henderlite (1905-1991). Written for a service of worship at Montreat, North Carolina, July 20, 1954

Twin Cities presbytery restores Capetz' ordination
Openly gay man set aside ordination in 2000 to protest G

That's the headline on the report from Presbyterian News Service, written by Duane Sweep, communications director for the Synod of Lakes and Prairies.

This report was prepared by Leslie Scanlon, Outlook national reporter, and Dana Caraway, a student at Princeton Theological Seminary who is presently doing an internship at Church of All Nations in Minneapolis.

The Covenant Network offers a brief news note -- right now on its home page.

That All May Freely Serve also has a brief announcement, noting that "This significant vote follows a similar vote in the San Francisco Presbytery regarding Lisa Larges, the Minister Coordinator of That All May Freely Serve."  The item concludes with:

The board and staff of That All May Freely Serve extend their warmest congratulations to Paul and to the Twin Cities Presbytery. Our denomination should be proud to count such a fine and pastoral theologians among its ministers.

More Light Presbyterians leaders have commented:

Bear Ride, Co-Moderator, More Light Presbyterians said: "The decision by the Twin Cities Presbytery is the right one, a faithful decision affirming the gifts and call to ministry clearly demonstrated in the life and teaching ministry of Paul Capetz. We appreciate the witness that Paul offered in 2000 by setting aside his ordination to protest the discriminatory nature of G-6.0106b and his testimony now in 2008. These are the very reasons why MLP is absolutely committed to ending discrimination against LGBT Presbyterians at the 218^th General Assembly this June in San Jose. We are grateful for all the churches and presbyteries sending LGBT-affirming overtures. Its about time for change."

Michael J. Adee, National Field Organizer of MLP, adds this comment: "Paul Capetz offers a clear call to our Church and to all of Christianity to offer the Good News of Jesus Christ to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons and their families; and for the Church to offer moral and spiritual wisdom to its own LGBT daughters and sons. I give thanks to God for Paul's ministry and his challenge to the Presbyterian Church (USA). I dream, hope, pray and work for the day LGBT persons will not have to ask for an exception, or make such a defense to be recognized as children of God or to be confirmed for ministry in our Church. That day will come and in welcoming and affirming More Light Churches this is reality now."

The Layman Online carries four reports by Craig M. Kibler, a staff writer

'Fidelity/chastity' ordination standard not an essential of Reformed faith and polity, commissioners decide

Scripture and the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) both took a beating Jan. 26 when the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area overwhelmingly voted that the "fidelity/chastity" ordination standard in the Book of Order is not an essential of Reformed faith and polity.   More >>

Commissioners question essentials, Scripture and personal relationships

Before voting on a declared scruple to the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s ordination standard, commissioners in the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area raised questions concerning essentials, Scripture and personal relationships.

More than 350 people were in the sanctuary of Christ Presbyterian Church as commissioners voted that a declared scruple to the "fidelity/chastity" ordination standard in the Book of Order is not an essential of Reformed faith and polity. The scruple was declared by Paul Capetz, an openly gay former minister in the PCUSA.   More >>

Commissioners vote to restore openly gay man to the ordained office of minister in the PCUSA

With very little discussion, commissioners in the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area voted overwhelmingly Jan. 26 to restore an openly gay man to the ordained office of minister of Word and sacrament in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Earlier in their meeting, more than 350 people were in the sanctuary of Christ Presbyterian Church as commissioners approved a declared scruple to the "fidelity/chastity" ordination standard at the request of Paul Capetz, an openly gay former minister in the PCUSA.    More >>

Meeting documents provide stark illustration of chasm separating two faiths in the PCUSA

Documents provided during the Jan. 26 meeting of the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area illustrate in stark terms the two faiths that have been roiling the Presbyterian Church (USA) for years.   More >>

A report from Doug King, Witherspoon WebWeaver

Moderator Ward Sessing presided over the meeting, with the Rev. Vicki Curtiss, a former member of the Peace, Unity and purity Task Force, serving helpfully as a facilitator and clarifier for much of the discussion.

After a time of worship, the group moved into a “discernment process” in small groups. Early in that period, the Rev. Deb Kielsmeier summarized the work of the Committee on Ministry, which has recommended that the Presbyterian restore Dr. Capetz to his standing of ordained minister.

The discernment session continued with the participants sharing their present thoughts and concerns in their small groups.

After lunch the Presbytery joined in a celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and then resumed its plenary session, acting on each of the three motions from the Committee on Ministry. First, though, they heard a minority report signed by five members of COM, which called on the presbytery to “find that portions of the Book of Order using the word ‘shall’ must be seen as ‘essential’ to the expression of the Christian Faith embodied by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” On this basis they further urged that Capetz’ request for restoration be rejected.

The debate was long (about 2 hours), and proceeded for the most part with remarkable civility. Questions were occasionally direct to Dr. Capetz through the Moderator, and he willingly provided answers to all of them.

(There’s more to be said about this, but not at 2 AM.  I'll try to add more later.)

After discussion was completed on each of the motions, the assembly voted.

Recommendation Number 1 from COM was “that Dr. Capetz’ declared departure from G-0106b be not found to constitute a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order.” This recommendation, which essentially said that in the Presbytery’s discernment, Dr. Capetz’ principled stand against the demand for a “vow of celibacy” did not constitute a violation of any “essential” element in our Book of Order or Book of Confessions.

The vote (by written ballot) was 197 yes, 84 no, with 2 abstentions.

Recommendation 2 was “that Dr. Paul Capetz be restored to the exercise of ordained office of Minister of Word and Sacrament.”

The vote was 196 yes, 79 no, with 3 abstentions.

Recommendation 3 simply was “that Dr. Capetz’ service as Associate Professor at United Theological Seminary in New Brighton, MN be validated.” At the suggestion of a commissioner, this was dealt with by a voice vote, with perhaps 5 or 10 “No” votes.

Because the first and second recommendations both passed by more than a two-thirds margin, it will not be possible for opponents of the actions to file “stay of enforcement” claims to delay their implementation.

Sarai Schnucker, Interim Executive Presbyter, offered this comment on the day’s proceedings:

“We are overwhelmed by the grace and love that this Presbytery exhibited today. The members of the Presbytery have conducted themselves with respect and restraint, even while handling such a controversial issue. As a Presbytery we listened to each other and heard each other. In the midst of this time of debate and discernment, there was true worship by the body of Christ as we sang songs and broke bread together.

We are unaware of what might take place as a result of today, but we have come together as the Body of Christ and we are grateful for the presence of the Spirit with us. Thanks be to God.”

Your WebWeaver can only echo her closing words: Thanks be to God for the hard and faithful work of many people – and people of differing opinions – to reach a decision in manner that was reasonably open and sensitive, and that helps our church take one more step toward realizing the community of love and grace and justice toward which all of us strive.

Do have have information to add to this hasty account? 
Or questions to ask, or comments to offer?
Please send a note, and we'll post it here!

Paul Capetz' statement to the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area, explaining his "departure" from provision G-6.0106b in the Book of Order

January 26, 2008
[posted on 1-27-08]

I grew up in the church. From earliest childhood through my teen-age years to young adulthood, the church provided the framework within which I came to know myself as a child of God. By the time I had entered high school, I knew that God was calling me into the ministry.

In addition to the formative influences of our youth pastors, there were certain life-changing experiences at church camp each summer that crystallized the future direction of my life. I remember one campfire sermon in particular that deeply affected my sense of call. It was based on the story at the end of John’s Gospel where the risen Jesus says to Peter: “Do you love me?” Peter answers, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” To which Jesus replies: “Then feed my sheep.” That night it was as though Jesus had posed the question directly to me: “Paul, do you love me?” “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” “Then feed my sheep.” In responding affirmatively to that call, I had found the direction for my life.

For me to serve the church as an ordained minister meant dedicating my life to an alternative set of values than that which dominates our society in general. It meant to direct my heart to service of God above all else and to love my neighbor as myself. It meant to give myself entirely to God’s will for me and to seek to discern that will for me in every situation of my life. This call gave my life meaning and purpose and hope.

But in addition to this youthful sense of purpose and direction, there was an undercurrent of despair that threatened whatever meaning this call to the ministry promised to bestow. That undercurrent was the result of awakening adolescent sexuality. While the teenage years are confusing under the best of circumstances, in my case they were doubly so because what I had yet to learn about myself was that my sexual orientation did not conform to the expected norm. Moreover, there was no language – or concepts even – to assist me in identifying what it was that made me feel different from other kids my age.

I graduated from high school in 1975 and at that time there was no public discourse about homosexuality in the media or in religion or politics. I never saw a TV show or a movie or read a book that dealt with the lives of people like me. In fact, there was nothing but a deafening silence. Indeed, I don’t recall ever having heard the word “homosexuality” uttered once during my high school years. All of which is to say that I had to come to terms with this on my own with no help from parents, teachers, friends, or the church. In this respect, the church was no different from the rest of the society around me.

While much has changed in the secular culture on this front, not much has changed in the church. In the 30 plus years since then, I have never heard a sermon that offered wisdom as to how a gay man should live his life in a faithful Christian manner. All I have heard is silence – or, when there was something other than silence, the words have been condemning. If I asked how I was to live my life in a morally responsible way as a Christian, I was told that celibacy was my only option – a life of permanent renunciation of any embodied expression of sexual desire and love. But that was nothing but a counsel of despair. I had answered the call to the ministry when I heard Jesus’ words “Feed my sheep,” but looking back upon my life I have to admit that the church has left me starving: starving for understanding, guidance, wisdom, and compassion.

Nonetheless, I did enter the ministry, even though I was internally conflicted about this decision, knowing that I was different in a way that the church condemned. When I was ordained in 1991 by the Presbytery of Chicago, I was open to serving either as a parish minister or as a professor since I had gone to graduate school after completing my professional degree for the ministry. Actually, I had gone to graduate school, not because I had planned to become a professor, but really to buy myself more time to think about what to do with my calling to the ministry in the light of the knowledge that I was harboring a deep secret.

It was during that time in graduate school that I began in earnest to study the Protestant Reformation. I vividly recall reading Martin Luther’s depiction of his own despair as he struggled to live a celibate lifestyle in the monastery. I saw my situation and my own despair mirrored in his words. Once I understood why Luther, Calvin, and the other Protestant Reformers categorically rejected vows of celibacy as incompatible with what they believed was the essential tenet of Reformed faith, namely justification by faith alone, I found the key to making sense of my own plight as a gay Protestant. I realized that by requiring of gay persons like me a vow of celibacy as a condition of our moral acceptability as Christians, the contemporary Protestant church had fallen back on its own sword that had originally been used to attack what they identified as distorted in the Roman Catholic doctrine and practice of their day. Not only did I see my despair around sexuality reflected in Luther’s account of his despair about sexuality, but I found my answer in the answer Luther first propounded and which gave the Reformation its start.

For the first time in the history of Protestantism, a vow of celibacy is being required of an entire caste of persons as a condition of their suitability for leadership in the church though the original platform of the Reformation was unambiguously opposed to vows of celibacy as contrary to the nature of the gospel. In its categorical opposition to all expressions of homosexuality, the Protestant church has unintentionally found itself having to deny one of its own essential tenets, namely that vows of celibacy are wrong because they imply works-righteousness before God.

My first call was to teach Reformed theology at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, one of our Presbyterian seminaries. As soon as I had accepted this call, however, attempts were made to revoke it on the grounds that I was a gay man. Although I had never made a public statement to this effect, this event taught me a hard lesson about the church’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Even if a gay person should seek to comply with it, there are no guarantees that one’s job will be secure in the church. After one year I left Union to take the position I have occupied at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities for the past 15 years since United, unlike Union, has a non-discrimination policy with respect to gay persons. A few years after my coming to United, Austin Presbyterian Seminary asked me to apply for a position on their faculty, but when I told them that I was gay the invitation was revoked.

When in the year 2000 I asked to be released from the exercise of the ordained ministry it was on account of the passage of so-called “Amendment B” (G-6.0106b) that, in effect, demanded a vow of celibacy for gay officers in the church. I should clarify that G-6.0106b would not in fact be a vow of celibacy for gay people if the church recognized the validity of marriage between two men or two women. If that were the case, I would have no difficulty abiding by the standard of “chastity in singleness” and “fidelity in marriage.” But as it now stands, while the door is always open for single straight persons to get married, that door is slammed shut for gay people with the result that permanent celibacy is our only option if we would serve the church.

I stand before you today, not because the standards have changed, but because the 2006 General Assembly has recognized the right of candidates for the ministry to declare a “departure” (historically known as a “scruple”), that is, a principled moral or theological objection to something in the constitution. My departure, as I have already indicated, is that I refuse to take a vow of celibacy. For me, this refusal is the only consistent response for one who is committed to the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in our Book of Confessions. Not only do I believe that the moral position of the church on the matter of homosexuality is wrong since it is incapable of making any serious moral distinction between promiscuity and prostitution, on the one hand, and a life-long committed monogamous relation (or “marriage”) on the other hand, but I also believe that this fatally flawed moral position has had the ironic side-effect of backing the church into a theological corner where it has been forced to deny implicitly one of its own essential theological tenets.

Paul Capetz, openly gay theologian, declares a "scruple" against G-6.0106b, seeks restoration of his ordination

In 2000, the Rev. Dr. Paul Capetz, a professor at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, requested that the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area release him from the duties of ordained ministry.  He took this action regretfully, but out of the conviction that it was an appropriate response to the strictures imposed by the adoption of G-6.0106b in the Book of Order, on persons of gay sexual orientation.

He has now applied to the Presbytery for reinstatement to the ministry, and has set forth his reasoning in this statement.

August 15, 2007

To: The Committee on Ministry        
      The Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area

From: Paul E. Capetz       
            Associate Professor, United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities

Re: Request for reinstatement

This document explains in detail my reasons for requesting of the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area that I be reinstated as a minister member at this time.

In a previous letter addressed to this presbytery (April 7, 2000) I requested to be released from the exercise of the ordained ministry according to the provisions of G-11.0414 wherein it is stated that in the case of “a minister concerning whom no inquiry has been initiated pursuant to D-7.0200 and D-7.0800, against whom no charges have been filed, and who otherwise is in good standing…[n]o judgment of failure on the part of the minister is implied in this action.” At its regular meeting of May 9, 2000 my letter was read aloud to the members of the presbytery by the chairperson of the Committee on Ministry, Rollin Kirk. After Stated Clerk, Ernest Cutting, publicly confirmed that, indeed, no charges had been filed against me and that I was a member of the presbytery in good standing, the presbytery voted to accept the recommendation of the Committee on Ministry that my request be granted. The presbytery then issued me a certificate of membership to Lake Nokomis Presbyterian Church where I had been serving as a Parish Associate for some years. I am now a member of Macalester-Plymouth United Church.

As I explained in my letter, the reason for my decision had to do with the passage in 1997 of so-called “Amendment B” (G-6.0106b). At that time, I was unable to construe that amendment to the constitution as implying anything other than commitment to a life of permanent celibacy on the part of homosexually-oriented persons who serve as ordained officers in the church. Aside from the fact that I am a gay man who could not in good conscience pledge a vow of celibacy, as a theologian of the church I could not then, and cannot now, affirm such an interpretation as in accord with our Protestant and Reformed tradition wherein the abolition of clerical celibacy was inextricably bound up with the Reformers’ understanding of Christian faith as articulated in the classic documents found in The Book of Confessions (5.245, 6.126, 7.248). I have defended this theological argument in a published essay entitled “Binding and Unbinding the Conscience: Luther’s Significance for the Plight of a Gay Protestant,” Theology and Sexuality 16 (March 2002): 67-96. Moreover, I believed then as I do now that the theological warrants adduced in support of this constitutional amendment are seriously flawed. My reasons for this view may be found in another essay entitled “Defending the Reformed Tradition? Problematic Aspects of the Appeal to Biblical and Confessional Authority in the Present Theological Crisis Confronting the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),” The Journal of Presbyterian History 79:1 (Spring 2001): 23-39. Finally, from my own personal anguish as a gay Christian man, I know at first hand the existential toll this amendment has taken on the lives of persons of faith and integrity who seek to discern what it means to follow a call to serve God as an ordained officer in the church. My reflections on this aspect of the issue are contained in “The Gospel according to Matthew Shepard: Reconciliation from the Perspective of the Unreconciled,” Church and Society, 92:5 (May/June 2002): 91-106. My views on these questions have not changed since the time I requested to be released from the duties of the ministry and I remain as firmly committed as ever to a future for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) when it will recognize the moral demand to grant “unconditional acceptance and full equality to gay people” (from my letter of April 7, 2000).

In the meantime, however, a possibility then unforeseen by me has been opened up by the decision of the 217^th General Assembly (2006) to approve the recommendations of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church as an “authoritative interpretation” of section G-6.0108 of the Book of Order. Accordingly, “Ordaining and installing bodies…have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying [the scriptural and constitutional] standards” to candidates for ordained office, to determine “whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office,” and to determine “whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation” (A Season of Discernment, Final Report of the Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church as approved by the 217^th General Assembly [2006] with Study Guide, 1059-67).

Furthermore, the Task Force’s report clearly acknowledges the inevitable tension arising from the requirement of ordained officers “to honor communal discernment of God’s will and the Spirit’s leading while also recognizing that God alone is Lord of the conscience under the authority of Scripture” (700-701). In its report, the Task Force draws attention to the fact that our Reformed confessional tradition teaches the principle that “All synods or councils since the apostles’ times…may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both” (The Westminster Confession, 6.175, in The Book of Confessions, cited in the Task Force’s report on p. 25, n. 27). For that reason, the church affirms “the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as universal and unalienable” (The Historic Principles of Church Order, G-1.0301, cited in the Task Force’s report in lines 705-706). The Task Force also lifts up the precedent established in the early history of American Presbyterianism whereby ministers and candidates for the ministry were permitted “to declare their disagreements (‘scruples’) with particular articles of the Westminster standards” which at that time had been deemed as binding upon all ministers and candidates for the ministry. This principle, reasonably extended to include confessional or polity standards other than the Westminster documents, allows for a minister or a candidate for ministry to raise a principled objection to G-6.0106b.

Since the church has now seen fit to find a way beyond the impasse occasioned by the incorporation of G-6.0106b into the Book of Order, I have prayerfully discerned that it is appropriate for me at this time to request of the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area my reinstatement in it as a minister member. As a gay man to whom the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage are denied, my marital status, according to the terms of G-6.0106b, can only be that of a single person. While I continue to reject any requirement of a vow of celibacy as a condition of holding ordained office in the church, I affirm the report of the Task Force when it states that “Those who demonstrate licentious behavior should not be ordained. Sexual behavior is integral to Christian discipleship, leadership, and community life. It is not a purely personal matter” (581-84). It goes on to state that “sexual orientation is, in itself, no barrier to ordination” (585). If “chastity in singleness” can legitimately be construed to mean that a single person is not expected to take a vow of permanent celibacy as a condition of holding ordained office but refers, rather, to the demonstration of a manner of life that, as befits a Christian, is morally responsible in all respects, including conduct pertaining to the embodied expression of sexuality, then there is no doubt that my quality of life can be characterized as that of “chastity in singleness.” Nonetheless, I still insist upon expressing a scruple of conscience or principled objection to G-6.0106b in particular and to the unsatisfactory moral position of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on the issue of homosexual relationships in general. That having been said, however, I know myself to be otherwise fully in compliance with the norms and standards set forth for persons holding ordained office in the Book of Order and I affirm with deep conviction the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as taught in The Book of Confessions.

As I noted in my letter of 2000, G-11.0414 allows for a person who voluntarily requested release from the exercise of the office of ordained ministry, “against whom no charges were filed, and who otherwise is in good standing,” to be duly reinstated when proper application is made to the presbytery: “Should a person released under this section later desire to be restored to continuing membership in presbytery, that person shall make application to the presbytery that granted the release, and upon approval of that presbytery, the reaffirmation of ordination vows, and resumption of a ministry that qualifies that person for continuing membership in presbytery, the person shall be restored to the exercise of the ordained office without re-ordination.” I continue to be employed at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities in a full-time capacity as Associate Professor of Historical Theology, where I have had the privilege of mentoring many Presbyterian students preparing for ordained service in the church. My employment at this institution was recognized as a validated call in 1992 when I transferred my membership to this presbytery from the Presbytery of Chicago which had ordained me in 1991. My understanding is that this position still qualifies as such.

In the intervening years between 2000 and 2007, I never ceased to believe that God has truly called me to be a Presbyterian minister. While it saddened me to conclude that fidelity to God then required of me that I set aside the office of minister, I made an equally important decision at that time not to leave the Presbyterian Church altogether. I discerned that it was God’s will that I remain in the hope that at some point during my lifetime a way might be opened up whereby I could resume my professional vocation as a minister in this church. I am thus grateful for this new authoritative interpretation of section G—6.0108 in our Book of Order that makes it possible for me to request reinstatement as a minister with a good conscience and for this presbytery to have the authority to determine my fitness for holding this office once again.

A major
Ghost Ranch event this summer!

July 28 - August 3, 2008

Paths toward Peace and Justice:
Spirituality, Earth-Care, and the Prophetic Word in a time of Violence

More info >>

If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep this website going ... and growing!

Please consider making a special contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.

Click here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.

Or send your check, made out to "Witherspoon Society" and marked "web site," to our Witherspoon  Bookkeeper: