The Advisory
Committee on the Constitution Badly Misrepresents the Pittsburgh Overture
(06-03), the Sexuality Requirement in G-6.0106b, and the Meaning of the
Christian Call to Repentance
by Robert A. J.
Gagnon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Overture Advocate for
the Pittsburgh Overture to Safeguard the Amendment Process
The rationale of the 2006 Advisory
Committee on the Constitution (ACC) for recommending disapproval of the
Pittsburgh Overture to Safeguard the Amendment Process
(item 06-03, Ecclesiology) is based on a radical misunderstanding,
misrepresentation, and/or ignoring of four things:
·
The PUP Task Force’s own view of Recommendation 5
as regards whether it permits ordaining bodies to treat the sexuality
requirement in G-6.0106b as nonessential (the ACC falsely claims that it
doesn’t)
·
The wording of the Pittsburgh Overture, as
regards whether it affirms current constitutional practice in the PCUSA
(the ACC wrongly infers that it doesn’t) and whether it makes binding
those confessional standards singled out in the Book of Order and
labeled as a “requirement” (the ACC ignores this completely)
·
The sexuality requirement in G-6.0106b as
regards whether it provides any specifics about what would constitute
“practices which the confessions call sin” (the ACC falsely claims that it
doesn’t)
·
Worst of all, Scripture’s and the confessions’ call to
repentance as regards whether the church can call a person to
repent of practice that he or she does not believe is sinful (the ACC
falsely infers that it can’t)
It is difficult to imagine how a body
charged with advising the PCUSA on the constitutionality of overtures
could have done a poorer job in commenting on this overture, the
Constitution, and the theological meaning of the call to repentance in
Scripture and church tradition.
I. What the Pittsburgh Overture
Seeks to Do
Let us begin by being clear about what
the Pittsburgh Overture seeks to do since the ACC’s comment shows little
evidence that the ACC understood the overture.
The Pittsburgh Overture merely
preserves the right of presbyteries to set binding or compulsory
national ordination standards (i.e., “requirements,” “mandatory
practices”) through amendment of the Book of Order. In other words,
it safeguards an important check-and-balance in the PCUSA.
This check-and-balance can be compared
to the check-and-balance provided by the amendment process in the United
States. States can, by national vote, amend the U. S. Constitution to
mandate specific national requirements, over against attempts by Congress,
the courts, or individual state and local governments to thwart the
collective national will. Similarly, the presbyteries of the PCUSA can, by
national vote, amend the Form of Government of the Book of Order to
mandate certain national requirements, over against attempts by the
General Assembly, the permanent judicial commissions, and local
ordaining/installing bodies to thwart the collective national will of
Presbyterians.
There is nothing radical about the
Pittsburgh Overture. It simply states that, barring exceptions
stipulated in the Book of Order itself, a requirement for
ordination ought to be a requirement for ordination. A “mandatory”
practice ought to be a mandatory practice—not just a “strongly
recommended,” “commended,” or merely “permissible” practice (see the
preface of the Book of Order for this fourfold distinction,
associated with the words “shall,” “should,” “is appropriate,” and “may”
respectively). Nor is there anything fundamentally new about this
proposal. It simply preserves the longstanding and current practice of the
PCUSA. Why, then, seek an amendment to preserve this right?
The reason involves the PUP Task Force’s
proposed “authoritative interpretation” of G-6.0108b (“Freedom of
Conscience – Within Certain Bounds”). This “A.I.” is really an amendment
masquerading as an “authoritative interpretation” so as to circumvent a
national vote by the presbyteries. It will give to individual sessions and
presbyteries the right to decide which “requirements” and “mandated
practices” are “essential” for ordained office and thus binding or
obligatory on all candidates (Recommendation 5 of their Final Report,
lines 1048-72, pp. 35-36). In other words, no matter how strong the
wording of the Book of Order, every local and regional
ordaining/installing body could decide for itself that any
requirement or mandatory practice is not a barrier to ordination or
installation.
Although the proposed “authoritative
interpretation” singles out the sexuality standard in G-6.0106b as
a case in point, there is no reason why the same principle of functional
local option could not apply, at least in theory, to women’s ordination
and to the first ordination vow about expressing trust in Christ as
one’s Savior and as Lord of all (G-14.0405b). A session or presbytery
could refuse to ordain women. Or it could choose to ordain any persons who
do not believe Jesus is Savior and Lord. Or it could choose to ordain any
persons who are actively engaged in unrepentant homosexual practice,
promiscuous behavior, premarital sexual behavior, adultery, ‘faithful’
polyamorous behavior or polygamy, incest, or bestiality.
Although the Task Force says in part “d”
of Recommendation 5 that all such decisions are “subject to review by
higher governing bodies” (lines 1066-68, p. 36), such review “should”
involve only matters of process and not matters of content (so the ACC’s
advice on Recommendation 5e in its “advice on Item 06). A higher governing
body or judicial commission should focus its “review on whether the
ordaining or installing body engaged in a probing and rigorous process,
and not on whether it agreed with the lower governing bodies [sic]
determination as to what is essential to our faith and polity” (ACC
comment on Recommendation 5, item 06-01, last paragraph, emphasis added).
Simply put, if the “authoritative
interpretation” were approved at this General Assembly, there would be no
absolutely binding (mandatory, required, obligatory, compulsory)
national standard or requirement for ordained officers. None. For all
intents and purposes, every requirement for ordained officers would
be reduced to “recommended” practice.
Yes, technically the “standards” would
still be in place. And the presbyteries by national vote could continue to
insert new standards. However, the Book of Order would no longer
contain, nor could it contain through future amendment, compulsory
standards for all ordained officers—at least not so long as the
“authoritative interpretation” were in place.
To rectify this problem and to prevent
future GAs from attempting to circumvent the clear wording of the Book
of Order, the Pittsburgh Overture proposes to add a single sentence to
the final sentence of G-6.0108b (text to be added shown in italics):
The decision as to whether a person has
departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made initially by
the individual concerned but ultimately becomes the responsibility of the
governing body in which he or she serves. A specific standard for
officers of the church (deacons, elders, or ministers) that the Form of
Government of the Book of Order singles out from amongst other
confessional standards, explicitly labels a requirement, or associates
with mandatory practice by the use of “shall” language or its equivalent
shall be deemed by ordaining and installing bodies to be an essential of
Reformed faith and polity for officers of the church.
The premise of this addition is that, if
the Book of Order singles out for ordination a particular standard
from among all confessional standards, specifically labels it a
“requirement,” or associates it with mandatory “shall” language, it is a
‘safe bet’ that the standard in question was intended as absolutely
binding on all ordained officers, barring any clearly specified exceptions
in the Book of Order itself. The sexuality standard in G-6.0106b
happens to meet all three criteria, making preposterous any claim as to
the ambiguity of the binding or compulsory character of the standard.
Local and regional ordaining/installing
bodies do not have the license to demote such mandatory national standards
to strongly recommended standards (denoted by “should” language), much
less to standards that are merely commended (“is appropriate”) or
permissible (“may”). Why else would the PCUSA single out in its Book of
Order a particular confessional standard if not to say that this
confessional standard, at least, is essential?
An irony here is that, while the Task
Force’s proposed “authoritative interpretation” ought to have been put
forward as an amendment requiring a national vote of presbyteries since it
institutes a change in the Constitution, the Pittsburgh Overture’s
“amendment” is actually just an “authoritative interpretation” since it
does not change any preexisting practice. But the Pittsburgh Overture is
put forward as an amendment so that the national will of the presbyteries
could not be subverted or overturned in the future by a mere General
Assembly vote.
II. What the ACC Comment
Misrepresents
1. The ACC misrepresents the PUP
Task Force’s own view of Recommendation 5
Even though the ACC purports to be
defending the constitutionality of the Task Force’s proposed
“authoritative interpretation,” it appears not to understand it very well.
The ACC begins by claiming:
The premise of this
[Pittsburgh] overture is that the task force recommendation [5] treats
G-6.0106b as nonessential. This premise is incorrect. (2nd
paragraph, 2nd sentence)
Is the ACC right in declaring that
the Task Force’s Recommendation 5 does not “treat G-6.0106b as
nonessential” or, more precisely, does not allow
ordaining/installing bodies to treat G-6.0106b as nonessential? It
would appear not, based on the Task Force’s own words in its rationale
for Recommendation 5:
If
an ordaining or installing body determines that an officer-elect has
departed from G-6.0106b, . . .
the ordaining/installing body must then determine whether this departure
violates essentials of faith or polity. . . . If the departure is
judged not to violate the essentials of Reformed faith and polity .
. . then there is no barrier to ordination. . . . (lines 1222-29,
pp. 40-41; boldface added)
Question: What is the difference between
(a) the
contention of the Pittsburgh Overture’s rationale that “the task force
specifically singles out the sexuality standard in G-6.0106b as a standard
that could be deemed nonessential, and thus nonbinding”
and
(b) the Task
Force’s own statement that an ordaining or installing body could judge an
officer-elect’s departure from G-6.0106b “not to violate the essentials of
Reformed faith and polity” and so ordain the aforementioned violator?
Answer: There is no meaningful
difference. The Task Force’s recommendation 5 enables any ordaining or
installing body to treat G-6.0106b as nonessential. This is the Task
Force’s interpretation of its own recommendation and yet the ACC denies
that this is what the Task Force is saying.
2. The ACC misrepresents, as well
as ignores large sections of, the wording of the Pittsburgh Overture
There are at least two ways in which the
ACC grossly misrepresents the Pittsburgh Overture.
(a) The ACC misrepresents the
Pittsburgh Overture by acting as if the Pittsburgh Overture is at odds
with the previous practice of the courts and governing bodies of the
PCUSA. In fact, it is the ACC’s comments that are at odds with previous
and current constitutional practice in the PCUSA (as noted above).
The Pittsburgh Overture does not propose anything different from what
has been standard constitutional practice of the PCUSA. It merely seeks to
preserve current practice against the threat of unconstitutional change
posed by Task Force’s proposed “authoritative interpretation.”
Essentially, in disapproving of the
Pittsburgh Overture, the ACC is ruling that it disapproves of all
past national rulings and actions pertaining to mandatory clauses
in the Book of Order—including decisions against scruples
regarding women’s ordination (as in Maxwell v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh,
1974) and scruples regarding the prohibition of ordaining practicing
homosexuals. In the most notable instance of the latter, the 2000
Londonderry decision of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission
declared that governing bodies must “comply with the express corporate
judgment of the Church in an explicit constitutional provision.” Failure
to do so, it said, “exceeds the constitutional bounds of freedom of
conscience” (citing G-6.0108). It added:
There are no constitutional grounds for a
governing body to fail to comply with an express provision of the
Constitution, however inartfully stated. Assertions of inconsistency,
confusion, or ambiguity may justify the right to protest. They do not
create a right to disregard any part of the Constitution.
(The Session of Londonderry
Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Northern New England, 12.1065-66,
1069)
The GA court rightly understood that
ordaining homosexually active persons, whatever the rationale,
would be an act of non-compliance with respect to G-6.0106b that,
by definition, would “exceed the constitutional bounds of freedom of
conscience” allowed by G-6.0108 and thereby “disregard . . . part of the
Constitution.” The Pittsburgh Overture is not proposing
anything different from this ruling and yet the ACC is dismissive of it,
saying:
The overture [wrongly] assumes that this
provision [G-6.0106b] contains an unambiguous standard that the task force
report seeks to circumvent. (3rd paragraph from bottom, 1st
sentence)
Yet all previous GAPJC decisions
and national church actions involving G-6.0106b have assumed that
G-6.0106b contains an unambiguous standard as regards the prohibition of
homosexual activity by officers of the church. Why did proponents of a
two-sex prerequisite for sexual unions and proponents of homosexual unions
fight so vigorously to retain or remove G-6.0106b for nearly a decade if
the standard were so ambiguous? Everyone knew, on both sides of the
theological aisle, that an absolutely binding standard was in place.
In acting as if the Pittsburgh Overture
is offering an amendment that diverges from previous practice of the
courts and governing bodies of the PCUSA the ACC distorts the content of
the Pittsburgh Overture and covers up its own radical and partisan
rewriting of history.
(b) Even more blatant is the ACC’s
refusal to consider the whole of the single-sentence addition to G-6.0108b
being proposed by the Pittsburgh Overture—which addition mentions not only
the use of mandatory “shall” language in a standard but also the singling
out of a specific confessional standard for obedience and the use of the
term “requirement.”
The ACC argues that the Pittsburgh
Overture would not “accomplish the intent described in the overture’s
rationale” because, allegedly, the “shall” statement in the third sentence
of G-6.0106b—“Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice
which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained”—does not specify
“which practices ‘the confessions call sin’” (last sentence of the ACC’s
third-to-last paragraph). We shall explain later why this is bad reading
of G-6.0106b. Here we simply note that the Pittsburgh Overture is not
stuck merely on the “use of ‘shall’ language or its equivalent.
The proposed addition to G-6.0108b
reads:
A specific standard for officers of the church (deacons, elders, or
ministers) that the Form of Government of the Book of Order
singles out from amongst other confessional standards, explicitly labels a
requirement, or associates with mandatory practice by the use of
“shall” language or its equivalent shall be deemed by ordaining and
installing bodies to be an essential of Reformed faith and polity for
officers of the church. (boldface added)
Now let’s look at the second sentence of
the sexuality standard in G-6.0106b to see if this is an ordination
standard for officers that the Book of Order either “singles out
from amongst other confessional standards” or “explicitly labels a
requirement”:
Among these [historic confessional]
standards [that those called to office are to obey] is the requirement to
live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and
a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness.
The answer is obvious. Clearly, the
second sentence of G-6.0106b, which limits officers’ sexual relations to
“the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman,” both singles
out this standard from among other historic confessional standards and
explicitly labels it a “requirement.” According to the Pittsburgh
Overture’s proposed amendment of G-6.0108b, meeting either of these
two conditions would suffice for establishing the ordination standard as
essential. As it is, both conditions are met in the second
sentence of G-6.0106b. This is a fact that the ACC in its rationale for
disapproving the overture completely ignores.
Obviously, then, contrary to the
ACC’s claim, the Pittsburgh Overture would indeed “accomplish the intent
described in the overture’s rationale” if approved as an amendment. It
would require ordaining and installing bodies to treat unrepentant sexual
activity outside the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman as a
violation of an absolutely binding (i.e., essential)
ordination/installation standard. This, of course, is exactly what even
antagonists toward G-6.0106b have believed, including most representatives
at successive GAs and the GAPJC—that is, until the PUP Task Force’s recent
“revisionist” interpretation and the ACC’s uncritical embrace.
3. The ACC misrepresents the
sexuality requirement in G-6.0106b
The sexuality requirement in G-6.0106b reads:
Those who are called to
office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in
conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among
these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the
covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in
singleness. 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.
As we noted above, the ACC contends that
the Pittsburgh Overture would not achieve the effect of making officers’
unrepentant homosexual practice a violation of an essential. The reason,
the ACC alleges, is that the last line of G-6.0106b does not specify
which practices “the confessions call sin.” The ACC claims that in
order for the overture “to accomplish the intent set forth in [its]
rationale,” it would have to specify “a list of practices that would
preclude ordination or installation” (last paragraph, first sentence). The
ACC criticizes the Pittsburgh Overture for assuming that G-6.0106b
“contains an unambiguous standard [against homosexual practice] that the
task force report seeks to circumvent” (third-to-last paragraph, first
sentence).
As we have seen above, even if the ACC
were correct in its assessment of the third line of G-6.0106b, the
second line of G-6.0106b would still guarantee a two-sex
requirement for sexual unions as an essential for officers of the church.
But the ACC is not even correct in its assessment of the third line. It is
bizarre, to say the least, that the ACC advises a list of what constitutes
“practices which the confessions call sin” when the second sentence in
G-6.0106b already provides just such a specification. The ACC completely
ignores this point.
While the ACC is correct that one may
quibble about the extent of the phrase “practices that the
confessions call sin,” it is incorrect to assert that G-6.0106b makes no
specification of what such a phrase would minimally include.
For the immediately preceding sentence in G-6.0106b explicitly specifies
that “the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant
of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in
singleness” is one of “the historic confessional standards of the church”
that, in particular, “is to” (= shall, must) be obeyed. This is the
obvious flipside of saying that any unrepentant sexual relations
outside the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman would be a
particular instance of engaging in “practices which the confessions call
sin.”
In short, the ACC completely ignores the
immediately preceding context (i.e., the preceding sentence) for
determining what “any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions
call sin” would minimally include. The ‘three’ most important principles
for understanding the meaning of texts is: context, context, context
(similar to buying real estate: location, location, location). The ACC
disavows this principle when it interprets G.6.0106b. Thus it makes
G-6.0106b say whatever it wants to say.
It comes across as disingenuous for
the ACC to state that the intention of the Pittsburgh Overture (and
similar overtures) could be met if an amendment or authoritative
interpretation were proposed that would delineate “as specifically as
possible” which practices the confessions call sin when the ACC utterly
ignores one such specification given in the immediately preceding sentence
of G-6.0106b. If the ACC is bent on ignoring this clear specification
in sentence two of G-6.0106b, why would a list that would restate this
specification and add others have any effect on the ACC’s evaluation?
4. The ACC misrepresents
Scripture’s and the confessions’ call to repentance
The most egregious of the ACC’s many
misrepresentations, and the one that would destroy classical Christian
ethics at its root, is the insinuation that the church cannot call persons
to repent of practices that they do not believe to be sin.
According to the ACC, “a person can only
repent [sic—repent only] of conduct he or she genuinely believes to
be sinful” (third-to-last paragraph, third sentence). Now this is true in
the most literal sense since repentance involves a change of mind as well
as a change of behavior. (Indeed, the Greek verb metanoeo,
“repent,” literally means “change one’s mind [opinion, heart]” in the
sense of “be sorry,” “regret,” “feel remorse” for one’s sin, with the
presupposition that a change of mind/heart will necessarily lead to a
change in behavior.) However, such an observation by the ACC, restricted
to this literal sense, is meaningless and tautological (i.e., a needless,
often silly repetition of the same sense in different words). The ACC’s
observation is tantamount to saying: “People can change their mind to
think that a given conduct is sinful only if they come to believe that the
conduct is sinful.” (A similar tautology: “People can’t stop from engaging
in a given practice if they continue to engage in such practice.”) Well,
yes, that’s true, but the observation doesn’t advance the discussion one
whit.
And yet the ACC, however awkwardly, does
try to advance the discussion with this tautological observation. That, in
turn, suggests that they intend the observation to say something more than
a literal construal might suggest; namely, that a person not only won’t
repent but, more, can’t be called to repentance by the
church, for a behavior that he or she does not genuinely think to be
sinful. If true, this supposition might serve to nullify the third and
final sentence of G-6.0106b—“persons refusing to repent of any
self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be
ordained”—at least with regard to persons who engage self-affirmingly in
‘committed’ homosexual unions.
That the ACC is insinuating such is
evident from two further points. First, the ACC makes the following
distinction between repentance and abstention:
If a person does not
believe conduct to be sinful, he or she may abstain from that
conduct out of concern for the wellbeing of the community (e.g., 1
Corinthians 8), but he or she cannot be said to repent of that
conduct. (third-to-last paragraph, fourth sentence; emphasis added)
The inference here is that the church
can call someone to abstain from self-affirmed conduct but not to repent
of it. Parenthetically, the ACC’s appeal to 1 Cor 8 is entirely
inappropriate in this context because Paul did not regard the conduct
under discussion in 1 Cor 8 (eating idol meat) as intrinsically sinful. By
contrast, Paul did consider same-sex intercourse to be
intrinsically sinful, just as he did with incest even of an adult
consensual sort (compare 1 Cor 5; 6:9). For intrinsically sinful conduct
Paul urged full repentance, not just abstention.
Second, the ACC apparently took a
page from a playbook of the Covenant Network (thanks to Rev. James
Tony for pointing this out to me). In November 2003, R. Blair Moffett,
Doug Nave, and Peter Oddleifson presented a paper at a Covenant Network
conference in Washington, D.C., entitled “Interpreting Book of Order
§G-6.0106b.” On p. 8 they wrote:
G-6.0106b focuses on an element of
wilfulness – a person may be disqualified from ordained service only
if “refusing to repent” of what s/he recognizes as sinful. Our confessions
establish that “repentance” is a state of inward conviction about
the wrongfulness of one’s acts. Many persons in same-sex relationships do
not feel any such inner conviction. Rather, they believe that their sexual
orientation is a good and natural part of God’s creation that can be
responsibly acted on.
Here the train of thought is made
explicit: Persons who believe that their homosexual orientation is
‘ordained’ by God are not willfully “refusing to repent.” Rather, they
cannot repent since they do not believe their conduct to be sinful. As
such, they allegedly do not come under the heading of “persons refusing to
repent” in the third and last line of G-6.0106b.
So in a partisan fashion the ACC appears
to be parroting the Covenant Network’s position that G-6.0106b’s call to
repentance is not applicable to persons who do not believe that their
homosexual practice is sinful. Furthermore, the ACC does so even though it
bears little logical connection to their main point.
1)
The ACC bases its argument for disapproving of the Pittsburgh
Overture primarily on the alleged ambiguity of the phrase “practices which
the confessions call sin,” with which the mandatory “shall” is connected
in the third and last sentence of G-6.0106b. Asserting, as the ACC does,
that a person can repent only of something that he or she believes to be
sinful is immaterial to the argument about which practices the
confessions call sin.
2)
The ACC attempts to link the repentance argument with the
ambiguous-practices argument by claiming that the phrase “practice which
the confessions call sin” “creates an intersection between belief and
practice” (third-to-last paragraph, second sentence). However, the
“belief” in question is not the violator’s belief but rather the
church’s beliefs as expressed in the historic confessions of the
church, which in turn are modeled on Scripture. The ACC’s comment about an
“intersection” thus misses this point entirely: the belief that matters
here is the church’s, not the violator’s.
3)
The ACC in a subsequent comment states that G-6.0106b’s alleged
lack of specificity in defining which practices the confessions
call sin leaves room for an ordaining body to ordain even a candidate who
“did not believe that some conduct the confessions call sin was not
sinful” (an awkward double negative; second-to-last paragraph, second
sentence). What is the point of the ACC asserting that a “person can only
repent of conduct he or she genuinely believes is sinful” if the ACC wants
to argue that even a candidate who believed that his conduct was sinful
could still be ordained?
So there appears to be a significant gap
in the ACC’s logic when they attempt to correlate the repentance argument
with the ambiguous-practices argument. At any rate, their inference that
the church cannot call to repentance persons who do not recognize their
behavior to be sinful is completely untenable on scriptural and
confessional grounds.
First, contrary to what the ACC and
the Covenant Network assume, Christ’s and his church’s call to repentance
is never contingent upon the offender first concurring with the
verdict that his or her behavior is sinful.
The determination of what is sinful is
not made by the individual who may be offending but by Christ and his
apostolic witness in Scripture, to which the corporate body of the church
bears witness, in part, through its confessions. Individuals who attempt
to substitute their own understanding of what is sinful for the church’s
are, by definition, refusing to conform their thinking and behavior to the
confessions. This, in the church’s judgment, is a refusal to repent.
To think otherwise is to arrive at the absurd ethical position that
the church has no right to call anyone to repentance for any behavior that
is not acknowledged by the perpetrator to be sinful.
That the call to repentance in the
New Testament retains its validity irrespective of whether the recipients
of the call acknowledge their sin to be sin is evident from the fact that
the call to repentance is both universal and specific, as is the call to
believe in the gospel.
1)
Thus, John the Baptist called on Israel to repent in view of the
nearness of the kingdom (Matt 3:2), proclaimed a “baptism of repentance”
(Mark 1:4 par.; Acts 13:24; 19:4), and demanded that his hearers bear
moral fruit worthy of repentance (Matt 3:8 par. Luke 3:8).
2)
Jesus did likewise, as the Markan summary of his message “Repent
and believe in the gospel” indicates (Mark 1:15 par.). Jesus reproached
Galilean cities and his generation for not repenting in response to his
proclamation and deeds of power, declaring that they would be condemned on
the day of judgment (Matt 11:20-21 = Luke 10:13; Matt 12:41 = Luke 11:32).
But by the reckoning of the ACC and the Covenant Network Jesus should have
required of them only abstention from evil, not actual repentance;
for surely many of Jesus’ hearers did not “genuinely believe” their
conduct to be sinful. According to Luke, Jesus declared that forgiveness
of one’s brother follows the brother’s repentance, not just abstention
(Luke 17:3-4; for other uses of the words “repent” or “repentance” by
Jesus in Luke see 5:32; 13:3-5; 15:7, 10; 24:47). In Revelation 2-3 the
risen Christ repeatedly calls on churches and individuals in Asia Minor to
repent (2:5, 16, 21-22; 3:3, 19; cf. 9:20-21; 16:9, 11).
3)
Jesus also sent out the Twelve to proclaim repentance: “So they
went out and proclaimed that they (i.e., people, all) should repent” (Mark
6:12 par.). In the Book of Acts Jesus’ followers continued to make this
proclamation after Jesus’ ascension (2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 11:18; 17:30;
20:21; 26:20). Acts 2:38 is typical: “Repent and let each of you be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins and you
will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Peter is said to have rebuked
the magician Simon in Samaria who attempted to buy the gift of the Spirit,
calling on him to repent “in order that the intent of your heart may be
forgiven you” and his heart (not just his behavior) may be set right (Acts
8:19-23). A number of other texts in the New Testament explicitly mention
the necessity of repentance (Rom 2:4; 2 Tim 2:25; Heb 6:1-6; 12:17; 2 Pet
3:9; texts from 2 Corinthians cited below), to say nothing of an even
larger number of biblical texts that promote the concept of repentance
without explicitly using the term.
Would the ACC and Covenant Network want
to argue that it was inappropriate for the apostle Paul to call to
repentance the incestuous man in 1 Corinthians 5 if the latter were not
convinced of the sinfulness of his behavior? If not (and one would hope
not), then the ACC and Covenant Network are inconsistent. Paul’s two
explicit references to repentance in 2 Corinthians probably have this
incest case partly in view:
(I fear that) I may mourn over many who
have sinned previously and who did not repent of the sexual uncleanness
and sexual immorality and sexual licentiousness that they engaged in. (2
Cor 12:21)
Now I rejoice, not because you were
grieved but because you were grieved into repentance. . . . For grief that
accords with God produces repentance that leads to a salvation without
regret but the grief of the world produces death. (2 Cor 7:9-10)
It was not enough for the incestuous man
in 1 Cor 5, nor would it have been enough for any other participant in
sexual immorality (e.g., same-sex intercourse, adultery, intercourse with
prostitutes, 1 Cor 6:9-20), merely to abstain from continuance in the
intercourse while continuing to regard the intercourse in a positive
light. This leads to our next point.
Second, the ACC’s (and Covenant
Network’s) stance assumes falsely that willfulness plays no part in a
person’s decision to accept or reject the verdict of Scripture and the
confessions on one’s behavior. Scripture says otherwise. While the
mere experience of an impulse is usually not willful, an individual’s
moral assessment of that impulse does contain an element of willfulness.
This is true even when it involves
self-deception owing to a desire to gratify the impulse. The church is
under no obligation to give any credence to an offender’s self-deception.
The offender remains “without excuse” as Paul makes clear in his argument
in Romans 1:18-32 because God has given everyone adequate revelation to
know that they have sinned. Those who disregard or distort this revelation
have “suppressed the truth” (1:18). It is within this argument that we
find Paul’s key discussion of same-sex intercourse, which Paul
characterizes as “sexual impurity” (akatharsia),” “dishonoring
their bodies,” “dishonorable passions,” use of the body “contrary to
nature,” and “indecency” or “shamelessness” (1:24-27; compare 2:4: “God’s
kindness [should] lead you to repentance”). Paul sought transformation
brought on by “the renewal of the mind” (Rom 12:2). The same point is
reiterated in Ephesians 4:17-24; namely, that the person engaged in sexual
offenses is self-deceived in his moral assessment of these acts and so
needs to “learn Christ,” not only by “putting off” the old ways but also
by renewing the mind:
17[N]o
longer walk as the Gentiles walk, . . .
19who
. . . have given themselves up to sexual licentiousness (aselgeia)
for the greedy doing of every
sexual impurity
(akatharsia).
20But
you did not so learn Christ,
21if
in fact you listened to him and were taught in him, in accordance with the
fact that there is truth in Jesus.
22[You
were taught] to put off, as regards the former conduct, the old human that
is being corrupted by desires that
deceive,
23and
to renew yourselves by the spirit
of your mind
24and
to clothe yourselves with the new human that was created after the
likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. . . . (emphases added)
The ACC and Covenant Network would
apparently have the church do away with the renewal-of-the-mind side of
repentance for officers of the church. This would be a tragedy of
monumental proportions. A call for officers of the church to abstain from
the sinful behavior that they are tempted to engage in but not to change
their mind about the moral character of that behavior would be a call to
superficial transformation that is unscriptural and unreformed, dangerous
to the church, and dangerous for the perpetrator of the offense.
Believers are expected to conform not
only their behavior but also their thoughts to God’s will as revealed in
the teaching of Jesus and in the apostolic witness of Scripture. A person
who continues to validate inner desires that Scripture declares to be at
great odds with God’s will is unfit for church office, not merely because
he occasionally “backslides” but because he suffers from an unreformed
mind.
As apostle to the Gentiles, Paul was in
the business of “taking every thought captive for obedience to
Christ,” not just outward behavior (2 Cor 10:5). This is consistent with
Jesus’ interiorizing of God’s ethical demand, for example, in his saying
about adultery of the heart (Matt 5:27-30).
We pointed above to the case of the
incestuous man in 1 Cor 5 as an instance where change was required of the
heart/mind and not just the outward behavior. To extend the analogy to
other sexual matters, would the ACC and the Covenant Network want to argue
that the church’s call to repentance could not apply to pedosexual persons
(pedophiles) who did not believe that sex with children was sinful; worse,
that such a person could be ordained to office? One could continue ad
nauseum with analogies outside the sphere of sexual behavior. Should
the church ordain to office men who abstain from beating up their wives
but who continue to believe that God wants them to engage in such
behavior? Should the church ordain persons who agree to abstain from
extorting money from the poor while continuing to consider such extortion
their divine right? Should it ordain persons who agree to abstain from
racist actions but do not see such actions as wrong? These are the
absurdities to which the rationale of the ACC and Covenant Network lead.
On major issues of belief and praxis the
church rightly expects conformity not only of one’s behavior but also of
one’s mind to God’s will as declared in Scripture and embraced in the
church’s confessions.
Conclusion
Since the ACC’s recommendation to
disapprove the Pittsburgh overture is based on multiple egregious errors
and extraordinary ideological bias, commissioners should disregard its
recommendation.