Thoughts on G-6.0106b

As we approach the 2001 General Assembly, the "fidelity and chastity" amendment, now G-6.0106.b in our Book of Order, will clearly be a focus of discussion.

At the risk of adding more words to an already over-abundant supply, we offer here three essays that were written in 1996, before and after the passage of Amendment B.

On this page you'll find a brief critical look at the background of the overtures which became "Amendment B."

Click here to see David McGown's listing (one of many) of some of the "sins" listed in the Book of Confessions, which would presumably exclude one from ordination. (That was clearly not the intent of the authors of the amendment, but they felt compelled to condemn sin with a broad brush, to mask their true intent of excluding gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender people as such.)

Click here for Charles Rassieur's reflections on why this amendment appeared to him a profound threat to the church, as it replaced obedience to Christ with a new demand for obedience to various documents propounded by the church over the centuries.

The Background of the "Fidelity and Chastity" Amendment
(now G-6.0106b)

A Witherspoon Society Background Paper
for the 208^th General Assembly

[First published in the Spring 1996 issue of Network News.]

Overtures from the presbyteries of San Gabriel (96-13) and Santa Barbara (96-35) call for an amendment to the Book of Order, specifying that the Christian "manner of life" (Book of Order G-6.0106) includes "fidelity within the covenant of marriage" and "chastity in singleness."

These overtures have an extensive background. Their wording is drawn from the United Methodist Book of Discipline, where it was added in seven places after a judicial decision in 1984, in order to preclude the ordination of self-professed gay and lesbian candidates for ministry.

The amendment has been put forward at several General Assemblies; each time it has been rejected. The wording originally called for "celibacy" in singleness, but it was pointed out that "celibacy" means singleness; thus the amendment would simply call for "singleness in singleness." Now "chastity" has been substituted.

As Bishop Desmond Tutu has pointed out, "It is only of homosexual persons that we require universal celibacy, whereas for others we teach that celibacy is a special vocation" (Foreword to We Were Baptized Too: Claiming God's Grace for Lesbians and Gays, Westminster/John Knox Press). But the Reformation criticized vows of celibacy even on the part of those who felt a special vocation to the monastic life, and the Book of Confessions condemns "entangling" vows of celibacy (C-5.250; C-7.249). That, however, is what is being asked for. One woman said during a presbytery debate, "You mean you're asking two people who love each other faithfully that they must become celibate before they can be called as leaders in the church?"

The amendment has always encountered opposition on the floor the Assembly, where commissioners expressed uncertainties about exactly what might be permitted or not permitted under this amendment. If it were to be adopted, specific moral guidelines would be needed for its implementation.

While the amendment is generally regarded as a move against gay men and lesbians, it would apply to all persons being considered for ordained office. Sooner or later issues of enforcement would be raised, and these would affect all candidates for ordination. What, for example, would be expected of divorced persons? What inquires would be made into the circumstances of the divorce? Would only the "innocent" party be permitted to be ordained or installed as a church officer? Many issues of evidence and procedure under the Rules of Discipline would be raised. The Los Ranchos overture (96-41) would require higher governing bodies to correct any irregularity or cure any delinquency when a lower governing body failed to enforce this rule.

A venerable former Moderator of the General Assembly has reminded us that Jesus "redefined the family" in his teaching (Mk. 10:29- 30), urging people to leave parents and siblings, and even omitting the role of father in his description of the new community (cf. also Mt. 23:9). The patriarchal family is not the only standard of Christian life. We can understand why Stanley Hauerwas, the outspoken evangelical ethicist at Duke, when the New York Time called and asked him whether he supported family values, replied, "Hell, no, I'm a Christian!"

At the 1991 General Assembly a statement that "all who enter a covenantal relationship are to be honored" was narrowly defeated, and David Heim of The Christian Century commented that "the church will find itself increasingly hard pressed not to offer some formal acknowledgment of committed gay relationships" in line with the classic Biblical theme of covenant.