On Feb. 7 the Pittsburgh Presbytery
passed
by a vote of 89 to 53 (62.7%)
an overture
entitled,
"On Amending G-6.0108b, 'Freedom of Ordaining Bodies within Certain
Bounds,' to Include a Freedom of Ordaining Bodies within Certain
Bounds" (nicknamed "The Overture for Theological Sanity and
Constitutional Honesty"). This overture, which I wrote, was sponsored
by the sessions of Eastminster Presbyterian Church and Bellefield
Presbyterian Church (both in Pittsburgh). The overture and its
rational can be read in pdf
here.
The overture is to amend G-6.0108b of
the Book of Order (the polity half of the Constitution of the
Presbyterian Church U.S.A.) by adding to the end of the paragraph:
"This
responsibility [i.e. of the governing body, whether presbytery or
session, to determine whether a candidate or officer has departed
from essentials of Reformed faith and polity] does not give the
governing body constitutional grounds to define essentials in ways
that ignore clear indicators in the Book of Order regarding what is
essential. These indicators include standards specified in
ordination vows in the Book of Order; standards singled out in the
Book of Order for compliance amongst other standards; and standards
oft repeated in diverse contexts in the Book of Order."
An example of a standard "specified
in ordination vows in the Book of Order" is the first ordination vow,
which requires a candidate to affirm faith in Christ as one’s Savior
and as Lord of all. An example of a standard "singled out in the Book
of Order for compliance amongst other standards" is the sexuality
standard in G-6.0106b confining sexual relations to the covenant of
marriage between a man and a woman. An example of a standard "oft
repeated in diverse contexts in the Book of Order" is the affirmation
of women’s ordination.
Why is such an overture needed? It is
needed because much of the PCUSA leadership is ignoring obvious
indicators in the church's Book of Order regarding a minimum of
ordination essentials. The controversial "Authoritative
Interpretation" of G-6.0108b that was put forward by the "Peace,
Unity, and Purity" Task Force of the PCUSA and passed by a 57%
vote of commissioners at the 2006 General Assembly said that the
regional and local ordaining bodies could decide for themselves what
the essential standards for ordination are. Based on this A.I. the
court of the Synod of the Trinity, which is over the Pittsburgh
Presbytery, overruled an attempt by even the presbytery to determine
in advance ordination essentials (to say nothing of the
national governing body). It decided in May 2007 that there are no
"predetermined ordination essentials." In an article published in
Presbyweb.com I showed the absurdity of any claim that there are no
predetermined churchwide essentials for ordination: "Three
Clear Indicators in the Book of Order Regarding Essentials: A Plea for
Theological Sanity and Constitutional Honesty."
To view this article go
here (at
http://www.presbyweb.com/2008/Viewpoint/Robert%2BGagnon-PCUSAInsanity.doc).
I was given five minutes to present
the overture to the Pittsburgh Presbytery for the first and only time.
Although I think the manner of presentation went well, it was really
the duh-effect of the content of the overture itself that carried the
day. Of course, when the Book of Order places a standard in an
ordination vow, explicitly singles it out from amongst other standards
for the purpose of stressing compliance, or repeats a standard often
and in different settings it is saying, in effect, that the standard
is essential. This is hard to deny without looking foolish. A number
of people immediately went to the microphones to speak on the
overture's behalf. Interestingly, of the 53 persons who would shortly
vote against the overture, only one got up to speak against it--and he
ignored the points made and instead absurdly referred to the overture
as “fundamentalism.”
Overture to Revise Translation of the
Heidelberg Catechism to Remove "Homosexual Perversion"
Not everything in the Presbytery
meeting went as well. The first overture, from two homosexualist
"Covenant Network" churches (East Liberty Presbyterian and Sixth
Presbyterian) called for a retranslation of the Heidelberg Catechism.
Why a retranslation? The overture alleges four problems in the 1962
English translation by Arthur Miller and Eugene Osterhaven, the first
three of which are just smokescreens to get at the real reason for
calling for a retranslation; namely, to eliminate from the confessions
explicit negative reference to homosexual practice (but cf. also
question-and-answer 139 of the Larger Catechism, which includes
"sodomy and all unnatural lusts," footnoting Rom 1:26-27 and Lev
20:15-16, among "the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment"
[7.249]).
In question 87 the Heidelberg
Catechism (4.086) asks: "Can those who do not turn to God from their
ungrateful, impenitent life be saved?" A literal rendering of the
original German of the authors of the Catechism, Zacharias Ursinus and
Kaspar Olevianus, reads :
“By no means! Because Scripture
states that no idolater, adulterer, thief, drunkard, or slanderer
will inherit the kingdom of God.”
(so Prof. Andreas K. Schuele at
Union Seminary in Virginia)
However, instead of rendering the
text this way the 1962 English translation of the Heidelberg Catechism
inserted the New English Bible text of 1 Cor 6:9-10:
"Certainly not! Scripture says,
"Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of
the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none
who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no
thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers will
possess the kingdom of God."
The original German is clearly
alluding to 1 Cor 6:9-10. It lists as reference texts 1 Cor 6:9-10,
Eph 5:5-6, and 1 John 3:14, but only
the list
in 1 Cor 6:9-10 corresponds to the order and use of the offender
groups in the German. Here is a literal translation of 1 Cor 6:9-10,
with offenders not picked up in the German original of Heidelberg
Catechism A 87 put in boldface:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not
inherit the kingdom of God? Don't be deceiving yourselves
[or: do not be deceived, make no mistake]: Neither
the sexually immoral [pornoi, a general term for
sexual immorality that English translations sometimes mistakenly
constrict to 'fornicators'; here including not only the three sexual
offenders mentioned after idolaters but also the incestuous man in 1
Cor 5:9-11, who is called a pornos, men who have sex with a
prostitute (porne) in 1 Cor 6:15-17, and men who have sex
outside of marriage in 1 Cor 7:2 (porneia)]
nor idolaters nor adulterers nor soft men [malakoi,
in context: men who feminize themselves to serve as the passive or
receptive sexual partners of other men] nor men
who lie with males [arsenokoitai, a distinctly
Jewish and Christian term formulated from the absolute prohibitions
of homosexual practice in Lev 18:22 and 20:13: "You shall not lie
with a male (arsen) as lying [koite] with a woman"]
nor thieves nor the covetous [or:
greedy persons: pleonektai], not drunkards,
not slanderers, not swindlers [or: robbers; literally,
"snatchers": harpages] shall inherit the
kingdom of God."
The
German text of Heidelberg A 87 leaves out five offender groups:
"The
sexually immoral" ("fornicators")
"Soft
men"
"Men
who lie with males"
"The
covetous [or: greedy]"
"Swindlers [or: robbers]"
The
"Covenant Network" churches who want a new translation more faithful
to the original German would not be asking for a new translation if
the 1962 English translation had inserted into the German text, from 1
Cor 6:9-10, only "the sexually immoral," "the covetous/greedy," and
"swindlers," or at least only the last two. Why? Because they would
agree that such things should be prohibited. They would rightly reason
that even though the translators of the 1962 English translation had
added these offender groups to the German of the catechism, such an
addition is in keeping both with the Scripture on which the German is
based and with the church's historic teaching. They would also reason,
correctly, that Ursinus and Olevianus could not have left out any of
these terms because of any theological disagreement with Scripture.
Probably "swindlers/robbers" was omitted simply because of a perceived
overlap with the term for "thieves," already mentioned. The reason for
omitting "the covetous/greedy" is not as obvious; at any rate, it
could hardly have had anything to do with approving of greed. Perhaps
it was omitted because of the misunderstanding that it might have
raised; namely, that any feeling of covetousness or greed could
exclude one from God's kingdom when, in fact, Paul had in view only
extreme instances of serial, unrepentant hording and exploitation.
The fact
that the "Covenant Network" churches would almost certainly not have
called for a new translation if only "the covetous" and "swindlers"
were added (and perhaps "the sexually immoral") underscores that they
did not introduce the overture because they are translation purists or
sticklers for reading a text precisely. They have little interest in
assessing the evidence that I have put together that contends that
Paul's references to malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Cor
6:9 collectively take in every form of male-male intercourse
(for a brief summary of the evidence go
here and see pp. 9-13). They show no desire to acknowledge
the obvious import of singling out the male-female prerequisite for
sexual relations from amongst all the church's standards in G-6.0106b.
In short, they consistently read against the grain of texts in order
to get their ideological way. That is their only interest here: the
desire to remove from the confessions whatever does not conform to
their own support for homosexual practice.
As with the Catechism's omission of
the "covetous/greedy" and "swindlers/robbers," the omission of
"sexually immoral persons (or: fornicators)," "soft men," and "men who
lie with males" can have had nothing to do with a desire to affirm
fornication, incest, sex with prostitutes, and homosexual practice.
The only logical reason for sixteenth-century reformers to omit terms
having to do with sexual immorality, especially homosexual practice,
is that these behaviors were viewed as obscene and thus wholly
inappropriate to mention, especially in a catechism that would be used
to instruct children. Calvin himself, when he comments on Rom 1:26-27,
1 Cor 6:9, and Jude 7 in his commentaries, does so only in an oblique
way, referring to desires and actions that are "monstrous,"
"polluted," "most filthy and detestable," and "the most abominable"
(as Rev. Winfield Casey Jones helpfully reminds in his discussion, p.
5 n. 8
here, though he is not credible from an historical vantage point
in asserting that one "possible" reason for the omission is that
Ursinus and Olevianus did not think Scripture spoke "against same
gender sex"; and terribly naive in his assessments of the motivation
of those who put forward this overture). Even as late as the early
twentieth century, the Loeb Classical Library published by Harvard
University Press would routinely render Greek classical texts into
Latin rather than English whenever coming across favorable discussions
of homosexual practice. The reason: such material was regarded as
obscene and likely to corrupt young minds.
So commissioning a new translation of
the Heidelberg Confession for the obvious purpose of getting rid of
any reference to "homosexual perversion" gets things precisely
backwards; namely that the omission of the terms for homosexual
practice in 1 Cor 6:9 is a reflection of how bad and obscene Ursinus
and Olevianus, among all other reformers of the day, thought
homosexual practice was. Since no one would be calling for a
retranslation of the Heidelberg Catechism if only the "covetous" and
"swindlers" had been added to the German text in keeping with 1 Cor
6:9, there is no need to call for a retranslation on the basis that a
term for homosexual practice was added to the German text in keeping
with 1 Cor 6:9.
Producing a new translation of the
Heidelberg Catechism for the obvious singular purpose of removing the
phrase "homosexual perversion" would be a one-sided concession to an
ideological agendas that has shown little interest in studying the
strong and numerous arguments for a male-female prerequisite in
Scripture, in reading the Book of Order's ordination standard
for sexuality in a reasonable way, or in discerning the apparent
historical motivation behind the omission of terms for homosexual
practice in the Heidelberg Catechism's allusion to 1 Cor 6:9-10.
The moderator of the Pittsburgh
Presbytery, whose sympathies clearly lie with the Covenant Network
(this is evident from public statements made at presbytery), had been
asked by the sponsoring "Covenant Network" churches to permit three
outside scholars to come and speak "for information purposes" to the
overture, for a total of 15 minutes
in addition to the normal
total of 20 minutes allowed for both presentation and alternating pro-
and con-responses from the floor. He recommended to the presbytery
council that the three speakers be allowed to speak, waiving the
standing presbytery rule. Some members of the council at first
resisted this but the council ultimately went with the moderator's
recommendation. The moderator has since assured me that he did not
intend any bias in the decision. I asked: Didn’t you realize that the
churches sponsoring the overture were flying in the speakers? Didn’t
you recognize that these persons would be one-sided overture
advocates, not merely neutral persons providing “information”? Didn’t
you sense an obligation to provide equal time for experts that might
have a different view? Wouldn’t it have been fair, then, to docket at
least 5 minutes more time for the presenters of each of the other
overtures, all 6 of which were Presbyterian-Coalition-type overtures?
If not an intended bias, there was at least an effective bias. In my
opinion it was largely due to the unfair extra time given to overture
advocates that led to the overture passing by a vote of 128 to 94.
Pro-Life Overtures
Two pro-life overtures (one calling
for advocating and funding either both sides of the abortion issue or
neither; the other that the Board of Pensions provide an annual Relief
of Conscience Plan Report) were passed by wide margins in voice vote.
However, the most critical pro-life overture, one calling for an end
to abortion as an automatically covered benefit in the Board of
Pensions Medical Benefits Plain (unless the abortion was necessary for
the life of the mother), was voted down. And it was voted down even
though there would be the option of purchasing an insurance rider for
elective abortion. The main reason that it lost: some who might
otherwise have supported the overture felt uncomfortable about not
including a provision for rape or incest, or for new circumstances
brought on by technological advances (such as the necessity of killing
three children in the womb to save the life of two). Perhaps the
amendment “…or to save the life of one or more children in a
multiple-birth pregnancy” would have saved the day, but no one thought
of it at the time.
Concurring Overture to Delay Vote on the FOG Rewrite
Thankfully an overture to concur with
the overture of the presbytery of Mississippi, requiring an additional
two-year period of study by the churches of the Form of Government
revision before it comes to vote at GA, passed by a substantial
margin.
Attempt to Amend Presbytery Manual on Per Capita
Finally, and unfortunately, an
in-house overture to amend the Pittsburgh Presbytery Manual on per
capita, allowing a church to earmark all of its per capita funds to
missions as a protest to developments in the PCUSA, was rejected. Even
though 40 presbyteries already permit such a policy, one member of
Council angrily and slanderously denounced this amendment attempt as
the equivalent of Southern segregationalists in the 1950s trying to
"interpose" the state between the people and the federal government
(don’t try to figure out the lame analogy). Never mind that he had
just voted against the "Freedom of Ordaining Bodies within Certain
Bounds" overture, thus "interposing" in matters of doctrine (which is
more important than money) a presbytery "option" to ordain persons who
don’t confess Jesus, live in sexual immorality, or don’t affirm
women’s ordination, in violation of the national conscience reflected
in the Book of Order.
In summary, God was honored in some
things that we did and not honored in others but I think the results
on the whole favor the former.