Is Box Turtle
Kincaid Logic-Challenged?
A Response to
His Claim That I Used “Tortured Logic” In Evaluating the Effect of 2008
PCUSA General Assembly Actions on Ordaining Homosexually Active
Candidates
by Robert A. J.
Gagnon, Ph.D.
Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2596
gagnon@pts.edu
July 30, 2008
For a PDF version with proper
pagination and format click
here
The homosexualist “Box Turtle” website is aptly named.
Though its originators had other ideas in mind when they chose the
title, there is a certain irony in naming their site after an animal
with an obsessive streak that can be easily confused and frightened by
the world beyond its shell. One website recommends that those who keep
box turtles as pets should house the creatures in containers whose sides
are covered. Otherwise they will either become scared by outside noises
or obsessively try to pass through the glass long after the futility of
such efforts should have been apparent. If not fed a varied diet they
can quickly develop obsessive addictions toward a food fed often.
Another website notes that, if moved more than a half-mile from its
habitat in the wild, it “may never find its way back but may spend years
unsystematically searching.”
One of its founders, a certain Timothy Kincaid, seems to
be similarly challenged by issues of truth and logic in his obsessive
efforts to promote his homosexual behavior. Kincaid’s fear is masked by
an abrasive, bullying style. He has written two postings for “Box
Turtle” critical of my work. The latest is “Gagnon Employs Tortured
Logic” (July 5, 2008;
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/07/05/2324).
Kincaid alleges somehow that it is “tortured logic” on my
part to argue that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) high court (known as
the GAPJC, i.e. the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission) does
not have to interpret a 2008 General Assembly vote to mean that
ordaining bodies have a right to ordain homosexually active candidates
for church office. The vote has to do with an “authoritative
interpretation” of G-6.0108, the “freedom of conscience within certain
bounds” clause of the Book of Order (the Book of Order is
the polity half of the PCUSA Constitution).
Kincaid characterizes my view as “tortured” because, he
alleges, I believe that the “vote [by the General Assembly] guides
ordaining bodies rather than the judicial commission directly.” This is
not my argument but Kincaid’s own distorted view of my argument.
My point is rather that, contrary to the desire of its
supporters, the precise wording of the 2008 authoritative
interpretation of G-6.0108 does not actually state that governing bodies
have the right to ordain homosexually active candidates. It says
only that “the
requirements of G-6.0108 … apply equally to all ordination standards of
the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” Moreover, G-6.0108 itself, the very
text of the Constitution that the new “authoritative interpretation”
purports to interpret
explicitly forbids
departures from standards that involve “obstructing the constitutional
governance of the church.”
It would clearly be an obstruction of “the constitutional
governance of the church” to ordain a candidate who was in noncompliance
with the specific ordination requirement found in the “fidelity and
chastity” clause of G-6.0106b. This constitutional clause explicitly
singles out from “among” all “the historic confessional standards of
the church” the specific “requirement” that officers confine sexual
activity to “the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.” This
specific requirement includes not only a prohibition of homosexual
unions but also a prohibition of sexual unions involving three or more
persons (even of an adult-committed sort), adultery, and fornication
(even in committed relationships outside of marriage).
By the same token it would be an obstruction of the
church’s “constitutional governance” if a governing body attempted to
ordain a candidate who refused to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Savior and
Lord (in violation of the first ordination vow) or who refused to
participate in the ordination of women (in violation of numerous
affirmations of women’s ordination in the Book of Order). To read
the 2008 A.I. as permitting ordination of homosexually active candidates
is to contend, absurdly, that there are absolutely no identifiable,
churchwide essentials for ordination. Such a contention would make it
possible for a presbytery or session to ordain someone who didn’t
believe in Jesus, who refused to ordain women, or who committed
adultery, polygamy, or fornication.
It is true that the rationale accompanying the new
“authoritative interpretation” (A.I.) interprets the A.I. as allowing
the ordination of homosexually active candidates or, for that matter,
the ordination of candidates who didn’t believe in Jesus or who engaged
in polyamory or adultery. But the precise wording of the text proper of
the A.I. does not say this and, as anyone who knows anything about PCUSA
polity recognizes, the General Assembly approves only the text of the
A.I. itself, not the rationale accompanying it.
In fact, even the liberal-dominated high court (the GAPJC)
in its 2008 Bush decision (reached just a couple of months before
the General Assembly vote) noted this precise point when it ruled on the
similar 2006 A.I. that
it
would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit examining
bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been adopted by
the whole church, such as the “fidelity and chastity” portion of
G-6.0106b, or any other similarly specific provision.
Recognizing that its
ruling conflicted with the rationale of the 2006 A.I., the high court
simply noted: “The
Authoritative Interpretation includes a rationale section which was not
adopted by the General Assembly.”
For years
homosexualists in the PCUSA have used the argument that the “fidelity
and chastity” portion of G-6.0106b could be read in ways that its
original rationale never attended, namely, as allowing ordination of
homosexually active candidates. The chickens are now coming home to
roost.
So I am not arguing, as Kincaid confusedly claims, that
the General Assembly authoritative interpretation “guides ordaining
bodies rather than the judicial commission directly” but rather that:
-
The
General Assembly approved only the actual text of the authoritative
interpretation and not its accompanying rationale.
-
In
this case the authors of the authoritative interpretation failed to
word their overture in such a way as to accomplish their goal of
allowing ordination of homosexually active candidates.
-
Therefore, the PCUSA high court has a right to continue to rule, and
indeed should rule, as it did in its 2008 Bush decision;
namely, that “it
would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit
examining bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been
adopted by the whole church, such as the ‘fidelity and chastity’
portion of G-6.0106b, or any other similarly specific provision.”
This is hardly an
instance of “tortured logic.” In fact a respected candidate for General
Assembly Stated Clerk, Ed Koster, who personally supports
homosexual unions, has already written in a recent
Presbyterian
Outlook
article “How it is that the new Authoritative
Interpretation of G-6.0108 does not allow ordination of non-celibate
gays and lesbians.”
Kincaid has made
charges before he has taken the time to understand the issues. Willful
misunderstanding sadly appears to be typical of his tirades, which gives
even the confused box turtle a bad name.