wfn.org | "Fidelity and Chastity" Amendment Debate Clouded by Imprecise

[PCUSA.NEWS@ecunet.org]

Definitions 5-December-1996 
 
96483   "Fidelity and Chastity" Amendment Debate Clouded  
                    by Imprecise Definitions  
 
                          by Alexa Smith 
 
LOUISVILLE, Ky.--"Chastity" is a word under scrutiny in Presbyterian 
circles. 
 
     That's because the so-called "fidelity and chastity" amendment to the 
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) constitution is being debated and voted on now 
in the denomination's 172 presbyteries. If approved, it will mandate that 
church officers live "either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage 
between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness." 
 
     No one disputes that being chaste is a Reformed virtue, written about 
even in the pastoral letters of John Calvin.  What is not so clear is what 
being chaste means.  Even more problematic, according to the amendment's 
critics, is its imposition of a de facto kind of celibacy upon gays and 
lesbians that runs counter to Reformation ideas about what a church can and 
cannot require of ordained people. 
 
     Celibacy is generally understood to be a lifetime vow to singleness 
and a commitment to sexual abstinence.  Though chastity is generally 
understood to include sexual abstinence for singles, it has not been 
defined so precisely within the Reformed tradition.  Chastity has been 
used, instead, to describe a purity or quality of life that applies to any 
Christian, married or single. 
 
     "[With the Reformation], there was a rejection of the idea that a 
church, or any institution, can require people to be celibate," said 
Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary's Reformation scholar Chris 
Elwood. He insists that the Reformers considered celibacy to be a "special 
gift" that was an "unattainable ideal" for most Christians.  "Calling for 
chastity is not new. Making chastity an explicit requirement for ordination 
is new. 
 
     "[The meaning of chastity has] simply not been defined in the past ... 
Chastity has not always meant sexual abstinence the way celibacy does, 
though it can be used that way," Elwood told the Presbyterian News Service. 
The Reformers thought celibacy itself to be unbiblical, according to 
Elwood, and believed marriage to be the ideal for faithful women and men. 
"They believed," he said, "that sexuality was a gift of God and marriage 
was the place where that sexuality was to be acted out." 
 
     Chastity's broader meanings -- beyond sexual abstinence outside 
marriage -- may be open to interpretation.  But Elwood is clear about its 
meaning for gay and lesbian Christians.  Passage of the amendment, he said, 
poses a much more dire problem for gays who are precluded from marrying 
according to church polity.  Therefore, a commitment to celibacy becomes 
the only option for gay people who feel called to an ordained office, a 
position Elwood considers unReformed.  
 
      Barbara Ann Keely, a Presbyterian minister and Benedictine oblate 
from Minneapolis, also objects to mandatory celibacy for gays and lesbians. 
"Celibacy," said Keely, who lived as a religious celibate for five years, 
"can be a healthy way of life.  But it is a choice,  not a requirement." 
 
      Presbyterian Kathleen Norris of Lemon, S.D., a poet, essayist and 
Benedictine oblate, who has written on celibacy as a spiritual discipline, 
believes that Protestants too easily confuse chastity and celibacy. 
Meanings the words themselves do not convey have been imposed on them, she 
says, because the Protestant tradition has failed to define them well. 
 
       "People think  chaste' and  celibate' are synonyms and they're not," 
she said.  Roman Catholics refer to celibacy as a "charism," a gift or a 
calling from God.  "Celibacy," she said, "is a form of ministry through 
sexual renunciation ... and it may be worth looking into for Protestants." 
Norris cautioned, however, that Protestant tradition currently offers 
little in the way of pastoral care or spiritual discipline for those who 
choose celibacy.  
 
      " Chaste' is a broader term," she insisted.  "It does not quite mean 
celibacy. ... Chastity is possible for anyone, married or single." 
Chastity has more to do with how one views one's body, with "wantonness" as 
chastity's polar opposite, she explained.  "I don't know what it means ... 
but I have a feeling conservative people might have meant celibate [in the 
amendment rather than chaste]," Norris said, adding that she is 
speculating. 
 
     "Or, maybe, [people] were trying to leave a loophole there," she said, 
by using a less  precise word. 
 
     In fact, when the first version of the "fidelity and chastity" 
amendment surfaced at the 1994 General Assembly in Wichita, the word 
"celibacy" was used at the place where the amendment now reads "chastity." 
The Assembly rewrote the amendment, eliminating the celibacy requirement. 
The proposed amendment was then narrowly defeated by the presbyteries. 
 
     The Rev. Roberta Hestenes of Solana Beach, Calif., chair of the 1996 
Assembly Committee on Ordination and Sexuality that recommended passage of 
the current amendment, believes the amendment's language is very precise 
about the church's expectations for its officers' conduct.  
 
     The issue for the Reformers as well as contemporary Christians, 
Hestenes believes, is "what was appropriate behavior for church officers 
who were not married.  If you were not married," she said, "you were 
chaste," which she defined as "restraint from engaging in sexual 
intercourse outside the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman."  The 
strength of this amendment, she says, is that it focuses not just solely on 
gay/lesbian sexuality, but encompasses heterosexual conduct as well. 
 
     Systematic theologian Mark Achtemeier of Dubuque Theological Seminary 
takes a slightly more nuanced stance.  Taking into account the Reformers' 
arguments against imposed celibacy by the church, he still affirms that the 
church "can and does draw lines" on matters of  morality, including sexual 
morality.  
 
      Drawing on Augustine, he said, "You have to realize this [chastity] 
presents a view of the Christian life as something which is, frankly, 
difficult to achieve ... But it is based on grace and ongoing struggle and 
repentance and prayer." 
 
     Achtemeier said the Reformers considered singleness to be a vocation 
from God, which may not last for a lifetime.  Minus modern-day romanticisms 
about marriage, he added, Reformation thinkers believed that marriage was 
the remedy for singles who experienced sexual "distress."  Calvin, he 
noted, was celibate most of his life.  
      
     Achtemeier acknowledges that mainline liberal Protestantism extends 
more latitude to ideas the Reformers  considered completely out-of-bounds. 
To illustrate his point, Achtemeier said the Reformers thought masturbation 
-- something modern ethics is willing to consider a help -- was  a more 
serious sin than rape. 
 
     What worries Keely in her role as Christian education professor and 
director of continuing education at United Theological Seminary of the Twin 
Cities is the lack of clarity about  what chastity means.  She would 
include sexual abstinence for singles within her own understanding of the 
term.  
 
     But, Keely told the Presbyterian News Service, the church has "not 
been really honest" in equipping candidates for ministry for the dilemmas, 
struggles and expectations ministers face in the parish, particularly 
related to their own sexual conduct.  So she teaches more self-awareness 
about setting boundaries in relationships, beginning with something as 
basic as interpersonal attraction. 
 
       "Interpersonal attraction has implications for ministry.  It affects 
how we interact with people we are called to be in ministry with ... Way 
before sexual intercourse, [clergy] may have other problems, Keely said. 
They need to be asking, "How do I set boundaries that allow me to cultivate 
relationships as pastor, not as friend?"  
 
     "That," she said, "is where you're really talking about chastity, in 
appropriate relationships.  A piece of chastity can include not being 
involved in sexual activity ... but we're not comfortable with the word 
celibacy.' The choice of words is not as clear as it could be. ... 
Chastity, in a broader sense, is not just abstinence from sexual activity. 
It's about purity of conduct, personal integrity, shunning ostentation." 
      
     Elwood shares that analysis.  "A big concern of the Reformers was that 
a vow of celibacy, a requirement of celibacy, did not lead to chastity. 
That was their experience," he said.  Their assumption, however, was that 
single people were to lead celibate lives.  
 
      "But I don't know of unmarried pastors in the early Reformed 
tradition. ...  There was a great amount of pressure put on pastors to be 
married, because there was this recognition that the gift of celibacy was 
given to very few people, if any," Elwood said. 
 
     He argues, too, that chastity means much more than sexual abstinence. 
"Chastity is interesting ... very broad in its meaning, in what it implies. 
For the church in the Middle Ages, it can mean abstinence from sexual 
relations for people who are single, celibate.  There can be chastity 
within a marriage, where a husband and wife agree not to have sexual 
relations.  There can be chastity within a sexually active marriage. 
 
     "It's a very vague term.  Chastity does not necessarily mean the same 
thing as abstinence." 
 
     If the amendment passes, only a PC(USA) judicial commission will be 
able to legally define what "chastity" means.  

------------
For more information contact Presbyterian News Service
  phone 502-569-5504             fax 502-569-8073  
  E-mail PCUSA.NEWS@pcusa.org   Web page: http://www.pcusa.org 

--