Hart challenged Morrison’s ordination because he does not believe that she complies with the requirement in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that people who are ordained must practice fidelity if they are married or chastity if they are single. He thought members of the presbytery should have been allowed to ask Morrison more questions — to probe into exactly what she meant when she said she could comply with those constitutional requirements.
Hart also is frustrated because he suspects there are huge variations from presbytery to presbytery in how candidates for ordination are questioned about their personal morality. Some presbyteries are trying to push through ordinations of gays and lesbians who are not celibate but have their own definitions of “chastity,” and some presbyteries are uncomfortable with asking questions about sexual behavior at all.
That criticism of inconsistency in examinations is echoed by people on both sides of the debate over ordaining homosexuals. Although the Constitution requires chastity for all unmarried candidates for ordination, whether they’re homosexual or heterosexual, all the high-profile challenges so far have involved gays and lesbians.
“I would say we have a double standard,” said Bill Moss, co-moderator of More Light Presbyterians, which is working to open ordination in the PC(USA) to sexually active gays and lesbians and has hired Morrison as a national field organizer. “Do we do this in-depth look at a person’s sex life if they’re homosexual and do we do the same thing if they’re heterosexual? I would say no . . . There needs to be some parity.”
Across the church, presbyteries are struggling with what to ask candidates about their personal lives and how they should pose those questions — and they do so in an atmosphere in which the issue of whether the PC(USA) should ordain gays and lesbians who aren’t celibate remains red-hot.
And these are by no means simple questions. There have been, for example, varying interpretations of what is meant by the term “chastity.”
There are concerns about consistency and how far to go, what’s a fair question and what’s too intrusive. Do you ask a single candidate if he’s having sex with his girlfriend? Do you ask a married candidate if she’s been faithful to her husband? Should disciplinary charges be brought against gays or lesbians who were ordained before the “fidelity and chastity” standard was written into the Constitution, and who are involved in committed relationships?
How far do you go in probing the personal lives of ministers who are already ordained, but are taking new jobs and switching presbyteries? Should there be detailed questioning about people’s theological beliefs as well as about their sexual behavior? What do you do if you don’t believe the answer that someone gives?
And why has the focus of the debate so often been on the private lives of gays and lesbians, when the greatest number of disciplinary cases in the church courts alleging moral misbehavior involve married male pastors and women from their congregations? Those cases happen, said Mark Tammen, the PC(USA)’s director of constitutional services, “over and over and over.”
Detailed questioning is not the norm
It appears that many presbyteries have not yet turned to the approach of routine, detailed questioning about the personal lives of candidates. In Charlotte Presbytery, for example, questions would be asked “if there was an issue we knew about . . . If we had reason to ask, we would ask,” said Paige McRight, the associate presbyter for leadership development. And all candidates in Charlotte Presbytery are asked to sign a statement saying that no one has ever filed charges of sexual misconduct against them.
So far, however, much of the heat around the “fidelity and chastity” requirements has come from the controversy over ordaining gays and lesbians — who do not have the legal option of getting married, staying in a relationship and becoming compliant. Some have chosen to declare their sexual orientation publicly and still pursue ordination.
And there has been some deliberate testing of the constitutional language. In a case from Stamford, Conn., for example, Wayne Osborne, an elder who has been nominated for another term on the session at First church, has said he’s gay and in a committed relationship with a lifelong partner, but considers himself “chaste in God’s eyes.” Osborne’s case still is pending before the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, and there has not yet been any formal definition in the church courts of the meaning of the term “chastity,”
There is also not a constitutional requirement that a presbytery ask exactly the same questions of every candidate, and practices do tend to vary from presbytery to presbytery, Tammen said. But generally, if a presbytery has information about a candidate’s personal life and “some reason to believe” that compliance with the constitutional standards of chastity for single people and fidelity for those who are married might be a problem, then the committees involved have an obligation to ask, Tammen said.
What exactly that means can be tricky territory.
In some cases, it can be information presented by the candidate — someone who says publicly that they’re gay or lesbian, for example. One presbytery felt compelled to ask questions, Tammen said, when a candidate had one wife when he appeared before a presbytery committee and a new wife less than two months later, when he came to be examined at the presbytery meeting.
In other cases, the questions emerge when the candidate hasn’t volunteered anything about his or her personal life, but information is provided from another source. For example, Tammen said, in one case a candidate sent a letter to another candidate’s committee on preparation for ministry, alleging homosexual practice. A committee probably would ask “if it has some knowledge — even if it’s rumor,” Tammen said.
In the LeTourneau v. Twin Cities case, which involved the candidacy of a lesbian, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission concluded that “sexual orientation and practice is relevant to a candidate’s qualifications for ordination” and must be investigated when “the candidate has taken the initiative in declaring his or her sexual orientation.”
While that standard most often has been applied in cases involving homosexuals, “it would be equally applicable” if a heterosexual were known to be involved in a sexual relationship outside of marriage, Tammen said.
A reluctance to ask more
Some have been willing to try to block ordinations or bring charges on the grounds that a candidate does not meet the “fidelity and chastity” standard, but others are sometimes reluctant to ask probing questions about a person’s sexual relationships.
For the most part, “no, they’re not being asked,” Hart said. “We don’t ask those kinds of questions of people — that’s part of our Calvinistic, puritanical heritage. We don’t go around asking everybody about their sex life — that’s just not something we do.”
Hart said he’d like to see examinations conducted in executive session, with only members of the presbytery present — no visitors or guests allowed. He thinks single people, regardless of their sexual orientation, could be asked, “‘How do you deal with your singlehood and your natural desires and tendencies?’ Just as you could ask a married person, ‘How do you deal with fidelity?'”
In Philadelphia presbytery, a proposal was made about a year and a half ago to present the issue to all candidates in writing — to say “Be aware of the fact that we expect you to be in compliance on this,” and to ask people to inform the presbytery if they weren’t, said Phil Keevil, senior pastor at Woodland church and a member of the Presbyterian Coalition’s church discipline task force.
The presbytery had “a very heated debate,” with some who favor the ordination of homosexuals saying that “If you want to know, ask them” directly — which Keevil viewed as an attempt “to put us on the spot and make the conservatives look bad by verbally confronting people” about their sexual relationships.
Keevil said he doesn’t relish such inquiries. “I’m for the Constitution as it’s written,” he said. “I’ve no desire to look into people’s bedrooms. I’m willing to take people at their word.” He’d just like people to be asked if they’ll comply and to be honest in their answers.
“How do you say to somebody, ‘Are you having sex with someone you’re not married to?'” Keevil asked. “It’s a subject I was always taught you don’t bring up in public.” But it makes him angry when there’s an “intensification of the battle” and candidates are presented who appear not to comply. Then people who might not want to ask such questions feel that they must.
“It just goes on and on,” with people who don’t want to become enmeshed in such battles sometimes forced to when those with much stronger feelings begin pushing the issue, said Dick Malmberg, executive presbyter of Southeastern Illinois Presbytery. “We’ve all got better things to worry about than to win a war of labeling, to no end.”
