One common unfortunate viewpoint, deriving from both the liberal and conservative positions, is that this ordination standard primarily concerns homosexual persons. At least that is where debates are centered. In reality G-6.0106b has more to do with heterosexual persons in that it relates both to fidelity in marriage and to chastity in singleness. Any clergy person or elder who has served on a Committee on Ministry has likely witnessed the damage done to congregations by the sexual misconduct of ministers. Can we deny the impact and influence of our culture with its fascination with sex upon church officers and members?
A common distortion of G-6.0106b is the claim that those who hold to the traditional, biblical standard are non-accepting and uncaring of homosexual persons and even homophobic, having an aversion toward homosexual persons. Those who hold to the biblical standard expressed by G-6.0106b are often regarded as condemning such persons. The example and teaching of Jesus most definitely emphasize inclusiveness, but inclusiveness should not be defined as approving all the behavior of those we want to include. Jesus had table fellowship with the tax collectors who were often regarded as gougers of the people. He welcomed the tax collectors, but did not approve
of ripping off the poor (Mark 2:15-17, Luke 15:1,2, Luke 19:1-10).
We need to make decisions about whether certain behavior expresses the will of God; however, making ethical decisions should not be
distorted into a condemnation of the person as a whole.
Inclusiveness has boundaries that are defined by God’s revelation in the Scriptures and the biblical witness is clear and consistent throughout the Bible.
A very common mistake made by persons with opposing views of G-6.0106b is that the central argument against homosexual sexual practice is the six or so passages that directly deal with homosexual behavior. I believe that more significant than these passages is the sexual intimacy that the Scriptures support, namely the caring intimacy of a man and a woman within the covenant of marriage. There is no biblical support whatsoever either for homosexual relations or for heterosexual intimacy outside a committed marriage. This mistake of focusing on the six texts was made by Mike Loudon in the Outlook’s October 26th Webinar on Amendment A in his otherwise excellent presentation against approving Amendment A.
Another misunderstanding of this issue is that the difference in viewpoints has to do with different interpretations of the Bible on this matter; however, since there are no texts which support either homosexual practice or heterosexual sex outside of marriage, how can we speak of different interpretations of the Bible?
A frequent misunderstanding of those who want to remove G- 6.0106b is that homosexual persons are born with this orientation or a strong
disposition toward it and thus such practice is the will of God.
However, three percent of persons are born mentally handicapped, and many are born blind or deaf or without one or more limbs and many other agonizing conditions. Are these very difficult situations also God’s will? I have never heard a fully satisfying answer to that question.
Sometimes it is argued that Jesus himself did not prohibit homosexual sexual conduct and thus arguing from silence that Jesus approved of
it. Jesus did not say anything about incest or bestiality either.
And why not? Because all of these behaviors were so strongly forbidden within Judaism of the first century CE. It was only when the Gospel was carried to the Greek and Roman worlds where homosexual relations were approved, even by a philosopher such as Plato in the case of a beloved teacher and a student, that proclaimers of the faith such as Paul had to speak out against it. Jesus approved only of sexual intimacy within the covenant of marriage, referring to the “order of creation” in Mark 10:2-9 (par. Matt. 19:3-7)
Finally, is the justice argument used in reference to G-6.0106b really persuasive? Is there anything in the NT about the “rights” of followers of Jesus? I do not know of any text that sets forth the “rights” of disciples. Can anyone say he/she deserves to be ordained? The NT puts the emphasis on grace – the unearned, unmerited gifts of God.
I wonder how often these misunderstandings will be expressed when Amendment A is debated in the presbyteries.
Richard S. McConnell HR (D.Theol. – Basel, Switz.)
