Reactions are starting to come in to the PCUSA General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission’s rulings in the ordination standards case. More Light Presbyterians are not happy, right from the headline: “Top Court Prohibits Scrupling Fidelity-Chastity Standard,” which suggests that they don’t understand what “scrupling” is. It doesn’t usually mean, “do anything you want.” Anyway, the story goes on:

GAPJC Decision rules against the Authoritative Interpretation & Scrupling G-6.0106b, the “Fidelity in Marriage, Chastity in Singleness” Ordination Requirement in regard to sexual behavior

In fact, what the GAPJC apparently did was rule against a misreading of the AI to allow not only dissent but disobedience to constitutional standards. But let’s get real: MLP doesn’t care about ideas or principles, only behavior. If ordained gays aren’t free to be sexually active, nothing else matters.

GAPJC Rules against Authoritative Interpretation of 2006 with regard to life and relationships

The highest judicial court of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC), ruled on February 11 that while a candidate for ordination can express disagreement with or offer a scruple about G-6.0106b on the grounds of theology or conscience, they are still required to comply with the “fidelity in marriage, chastity in singleness” requirement for ordination. The ruling held that candidates for ordination must comply with the sexual behavior standards of the Church.

Actually, they ruled that unmarried people have to keep their pants zipped, essentially. If that what “life and relationships” are about for MLP, it tells you all you need to know.

GAPJC Ruling interferes with call process & does not engender trust

This GAPJC ruling is disappointing because it does not give room for local governing bodies, churches and presbyteries, who know their people best to make thoughtful, informed and faithful decisions about calls to ministry and ordination. This ruling is disappointing because it continues to impose the restrictions of “fidelity in marriage, chastity in singleness” upon the call process. This GAPJC ruling is disappointing because it does not engender trust among us as Christians and the Body of Christ with regard to how individuals and couples express love, live in faithful relationships and create family.

Twin Cities and San Francisco have demonstrated quite nicely that there are presbyteries that can’t be trusted to adhere to constitutional standards. That means there needs to be some way to enforce those standards. MLP wants them to be able to ignore them. Oh, and notice how they don’t mention gays in the paragraph above. Apparently, they are against any sexual conduct standards between consenting adults whatsoever.

“Fidelity in marriage, chastity in singleness” is not Christian sexual ethics and offers no genuine sexual or relationship standard

It is important to note and come to terms with the fact that the current sexual behavior standard of the Church, “chastity in singleness,” does not offer thoughtful guidance on Christian sexual ethics for lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender persons who are single or in faithful relationships; nor does it offer any meaningful guidance to heterosexual single persons. Moreover, let us be honest, the platitude of “fidelity in marriage” fails to offer any genuine support or ethical guidance for married heterosexuals. These so-called sexual behavior standards fail our Church, fail our people, and offer nothing of substance to the larger society in terms of what it means to be in a faithful, loving relationship or sexual ethics for all persons.

Translation: this standard doesn’t give us freedom to do what we want to do. Therefore it does not provide “thoughtful guidance.” This is the adult version of the six-year-old screaming “that’s not fair!” just because he doesn’t get his way. I also find it laughable that the writer, Michael Adee, doesn’t think that “fidelity in marriage” provides “genuine support or ethical guidance” to married straights. What does he think the Book of Order is, a counseling handbook? Fidelity  in marriage in an absolute baseline for marriage to work–without it, marriage fails. Period. Working out the details is what you do with a marriage counselor, not something you do in ordination standards.

The experiment of G-6.0106b has failed & hurts our Church

The anti-gay discriminatory ordination policy of G-6.0106b of “fidelity in marriage, chastity in singleness” was added to the Book of Order in 1997 It has brought nothing but pain, division and discrimination in our Church. It has worked against the principles and the realities of peace, unity and purity within our Church. It has driven people out and driven people away from our Church. It is a barrier to people knowing that they are children of God, created in the image of God, unconditionally loved by God and welcome in our Church. It is an impediment to faith and grace. It is a scandal to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Given that “fidelity in marriage, chastity in singleness” has been the standard for behavior among all Protestant clergy for almost five hundred years, I’d say that it’s hardly a PCUSA “experiment.” I suspect it was added to the BOO in 1997 because presbyteries were ignoring the long-established standards that were universal, at least until the 1960s, but that doesn’t mean it was something new and different.

All the hand-wringing over division and conflict would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic, because it is precisely MLP and its allies that have caused the division and conflict. It wasn’t until the effort began in earnest to change what had been universally accepted standards that there was conflict over them. As for the people driven out and away from the church, far more people have left PCUSA because of what they perceive as a refusal to enforce recognized standards of belief and practice, including ordination standards, than because of G-6.0106b. More and more Presbyterians recognize that because the left never acknowledges defeat, never stops agitating for what it wants, never accepts that it is a minority, the conflict is going to be never-ending until the church gets tired of it and just gives in. They are tired of the fight, or see it as lost in the long-run, and no longer want to be part of it. Articles like this, that distort official decisions and documents for the sake of pushing the agenda, are at least a part of why they feel that way.