wfn.org | Opponents of Fidelity And Chastity' Amendment Argue Against

[PCUSA.NEWS@ecunet.org]

18-December-1996 
 
 
96494     Opponents of  Fidelity And Chastity' Amendment 
               Argue Against Theological Legalism 
 
                          by Alexa Smith 
 
LOUISVILLE, Ky.--Opponents of the so-called "fidelity and chastity" 
amendment are arguing that it has to be defeated to quell a burgeoning 
theological legalism that goes far beyond the current Presbyterian debate 
on whether to ordain gays and lesbians. 
 
     If passed, they contend, the amendment would purge sinners from 
ordained office in the church. This agenda, they say, runs counter to how 
Presbyterians have historically understood both their polity and their ways 
of interpreting Scripture. 
 
     "Practically every Presbyterian will qualify for one judicial case, at 
least," says retired minister John Gregg of West Dallas, Wis.  He serves as 
secretary for Semper Reformanda, a coalition of nearly a dozen advocacy 
groups within the church whose agendas embrace racial, social and economic 
justice, women's issues and the full inclusion of lesbians and gays into 
the life of the church.  "Who singles out which sins are going to be 
prosecuted?  It's ridiculous. 
 
     "We've never had anything like this in [the constitution] before," 
said Gregg, who believes the costs of the appeals and cases that could be 
filed if the amendment passes "could bankrupt the church." 
 
     Gregg and other amendment critics are pouncing on the proposed 
amendment's last line, which reads: "Persons refusing to repent of any 
self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be 
ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders or ministers of the Word and 
Sacrament."  They start flipping through the denomination's "Book of 
Confessions" to look for sins listed within its creeds over the past 20 
centuries, finding somewhat predictable ones like  -- gluttony, unjust 
divorce or desertion (as found in the Larger Catechism), and unexpected 
ones, such as the refusal to allow women to perform baptisms (The Second 
Helvetic Confession), which seem absurd to them by today's standards. 
 
     Opponents of the amendment argue that this last line is far too 
sweeping. 
 
      A number of the amendment's critics are circulating as much 
information as possible about what they assert are the amendment's flaws to 
the church's 172 presbyteries in a paper-laden effort to sway voters. 
Presbyterians for Lesbian and Gay Concerns (PLGC) has produced a $10 
information packet and devoted major portions of its newsletter to 
discussion of the amendment since the July Assembly. The Witherspoon 
Society's fall issue of "Network News" is packed with articles decrying the 
amendment. "Defeat of the Fidelity and Chastity Amendment to the Book of 
Order" is one of two action items on Semper Reformanda's meeting docket, 
Jan. 5-8, in Adrian, Mich. 
 
     "Whether this amendment passes or fails, it doesn't change the 
situation of gays and lesbians within the Presbyterian Church," said Scott 
Anderson of Sacramento, Calif., who co-moderates PLGC with the Rev. Laurene 
Lafontaine of Denver.  If the amendment passes, it codifies "definitive 
guidance" within the constitution, he noted.  If it fails, the current 
policy, which prohibits the ordination of gays and lesbians is still in 
place. 
 
     "The amendment has far more draconian implications for heterosexual 
leaders in the Presbyterian Church than it does for gays and lesbians." 
 
     "With this amendment, all of a sudden the argument changed," said 
Lafontaine, who has been a longtime activist for the ordination of gays and 
lesbians.  "This is not just about gay and lesbian people ... It's about 
who is going to provide leadership at various levels.  We believe [this 
amendment] is bad polity," she told the Presbyterian News Service.  Its 
intention, she said, is to establish a "new purity code," something Jesus 
soundly condemns in the Gospels. 
 
     The amendment, its critics say, could promote: a tendency to rank sin, 
with sexual sin listed as foremost.  It could leave ordained leaders open 
to frivolous judicial suits.  It could lead to questioning what 
"self-acknowledged" sin means -- open admission of sin or probing to get an 
admission during a candidate's examination? 
 
     What is sin and how to address it with candidates for ordination are 
two of the questions that concern Stonecatchers, a loose coalition of 
individual Presbyterians who oppose the amendment.  They have begun 
financing ads in various church-related publications voicing their 
opposition, according to the Rev. Ruth Hamilton of Westminster Presbyterian 
Church in Washington, D.C.  The Stonecatchers' ads say the amendment is 
un-Reformed, rendering the denomination's ordained person "vulnerable to an 
inquisition."  They also say it is "unworkable," creating problems of 
interpretation and enforcement for congregations, presbyteries and 
nominating committees. Among those who have signed on are presbytery 
executives Robert Fernandez and Herbert Valentine, journalist Leon Howell, 
former stated clerk William P. Thompson, and a primary writer of a 
controversial sexuality study that was rejected by the General Assembly in 
1991, Sylvia Thorsen-Smith. 
 
     Focusing on the term "Self-acknowledged," Hamilton said she wonders if 
simple admissions of sin will be adequate.  Or, will committees be 
compelled to probe more deeply into candidates' lives to acquire 
information.  "[Does it mean] if we don't get very specific about sin, know 
things about people's lives, we're not complying?  Then can a session be 
brought up on charges? 
 
     "There's going to be a lot of confusion if this does pass ... This 
goes way beyond the homosexual issue and touches a much broader issue of 
our life," she said.  "A lot of us feel it is straining the gnats and 
letting the bigger issues past. 
 
     "Singling out sexuality is wrong-headed," Hamilton told the 
Presbyterian News Service, noting the amendment's focus in its first few 
lines on "fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman" and "chastity in 
singleness."  She wondered why sins like racism and classism do not command 
as much of the denomination's attention or commitment. 
 
     Anderson, too, believes that the proposed amendment establishes a 
hierarchy of sin, putting gays and lesbians at its top.  "If the anything 
the confessions call sin change is taken at face value, he said, the result 
will be judicial meltdown. 
 
     "There are a lot of unrepentant gluttons, a lot of overweight clergy 
in the church.  And I'm not trivializing the issue," he said.  He believes 
the amendment will make ordained clergy, elders and deacons vulnerable to 
judicial processes by those who dislike them. 
 
     "I think the other side has overplayed it's hand here," said Anderson. 
"It has reminded us that its agenda is much broader than simply [opposing] 
the ordination of gay and lesbian people.  They could have left the last 
line out of this proposal.  And they've shot themselves in the foot, 
frankly. 
 
     "I think this amendment will probably fail because of the last 
sentence." 

------------
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 

--