At the General Assembly meeting in June of this year, the delegates voted by a narrow margin to pass an authoritative interpretation regarding the ordination practices of our church. Right now, when men and women are ordained to the office of pastor, elder, or deacon, besides affirming the authority of the Scriptures, they must affirm that they "sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do."

The authoritative interpretation that the General Assembly passed states that what is considered "essential tenets" of our faith and reformed heritage are now to be determined by each individual ordaining body (presbyteries or sessions). This would include whether or not the constitutional requirement of our denomination regarding sexual purity is an "essential" requirement (notice the conflict of that - aren't all requirements essential??). This requirement reads as follows:

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, or chastity in singleness.

Obviously, the ramifications of the interpretation which has passed the General Assembly include the fact that an ordaining body could declare a scruple, saying that sexual purity is "non-essential," thus unrepentant homosexual persons could be ordained into leadership positions in the church. While this is certainly at the forefront of the controversy over this interpretation, I firmly believe that it is only one symptom of a far greater problem, which is really at the core of this conflict. That problem is a rejection of the authority of Scripture.

Certain factions within the church have departed from the historic faith that has passed down from Christ through the Holy Spirit. Rather than affirming the authority of the biblical witness, these groups hold that new revelation is possible apart from the Bible and the Sprit's witness to the church through the ages. This is error of huge proportions, since it undermines God's own revelation of himself through his word, and makes it impossible to "test everything" as Paul has exhorted us to do. In effect, this understanding claims that the Holy Spirit, who reveals God's truth to us, is able to contradict what God has already revealed to us in his word - an impossibility.

The action by this last General Assembly of this denomination has "gotten it wrong" on so many levels by this decision, that I feel we are now in a state of constitutional and theological crisis. A report that was supposed to recommend ways to solidify the "peace, unity, and purity" of the church has actually served to foster the exact opposite of all three.
 
 WHY SHOULD WE BE TROUBLED BY THIS INTERPRETATION?
There are many reasons that this report is erroneous and should be troubling to all Presbyterians. I cannot be comprehensive here, but I would like to highlight three areas that show this report's failure as an authoritative interpretation.

1) It is bad CONSTITUTIONALLY.
 As reformed Christians, we believe that humans are sinful and are prone to error. We don't trust kings or popes, because they are human and subject to the same frailties and corruption that all of us are. For this reason, we entrust the polity of our church not to individuals, but to bodies of elders (Presbyterian comes from the Greek word for elder). That is also why in order to amend the constitution of our denomination, an amendment must pass with 2/3 majority in all the presbyteries in this country.

The fact that this interpretation effectively changes the constitution by altering the ordination process is troubling because it has circumvented our system of checks and balances which have been in place for this very reason. It has also done so without presbytery approval, and by a very slim margin, even in the General Assembly vote - 57% to 43% (hardly a unified decision). In our ordination practices, we are now more in line with congregational churches than reformed/Presbyterian ones, and that should be troubling to us.

Also, there is the reality that the above mentioned sexual purity standard for all ordained leaders is still in place in our constitution. In fact, it failed to be removed by huge votes at the Assembly. What good is a constitution, and why should we expect the rest of it to have any authority, when we can "look the other way" on this part? Troubling.
 This whole policy is unconstitutional as this precedent cited by Daniel Saperstein (former member of the denomination's highest court) states: "It is not within the power of any governing body [including churches and presbyteries] or judicial commission to declare a properly adopted provision of the Constitution to be invalid." It is illegal.

2) It is bad PRACTICALLY.
 When any group ceases to have a centrality of belief and custom, it loses its identity. When the church loses its centrality of belief, then it is no longer the church, plain and simple. This is not to say that we can't differ on some matters of faith. We certainly can, and we do. There is a lot of flexibility built into our Presbyterian denomination so that we can live out our faith in our own different communities with different people. That flexibility, however, exists within the bounds of the gospel itself, and when we lose agreement and centrality on Christian basics, such as sin and biblical authority, we are operating outside of those bounds. Practically, the church becomes fragmented because we have lost what it is that keeps us together.

Through this authoritative interpretation, it is very likely and entirely possible that whole presbyteries would lose the local flexibility of differences on minor issues. For example, right now in our denomination we have very diverse presbyteries where congregations that are considered "left" and "right" and everywhere in between are represented within the presbytery. Under this new interpretation, we could conceivably have that diversity removed, and see entire presbyteries that are labeled "liberal," "conservative," "fundamental," etc. This should trouble us, because the congregations themselves may not be represented by a likeminded pastor/shepherd.

3) It is bad THEOLOGICALLY.
 This is the most important area that demonstrates how disturbing this interpretation is, because it cuts right to the heart of the Gospel to which we belong (Rom. 6:16). Christ says that when we come to him in faith, we are to die to self. That is repeated again and again throughout the NT. We "put off the old self and put on the new" (Eph. 4:22-24, Col. 3:9-10). When we become followers of Jesus Christ, we take on Christ and are grafted in to his body, the Church. At that point, our identity is no longer found in ourselves, but in Christ. So when someone claims that their identity is so engrained in a particular lifestyle (sexual or not), that they cannot be found apart from that, it is completely counter-Christian. It is a refusal of dying to self, and an affront to the power of the death and resurrection of our Lord.

Furthermore, by condoning the non-repentance of any sin, the church is on extremely hazardous ground. We know that Christ has reconciled us to the Father and taken the punishment that our own sins have required. Christ has truly saved us in every sense of the word, and that is the Good News of the Gospel. Those who are without Him have not accepted God's offer thus are subjected to the judgment that Christ already endured. Christians who decide to take the "sinfulness" away from any sin are, in fact, taking away our need for a Savior (without sin, what do we need to be saved from?). In regard to those who struggle with such a sin, the Church would be essentially "letting them off the hook". Yet, we do not have the authority to do so, and we would be removing reasons for people to recognize their need for Christ's intervention on their behalf.

The Apostle John stated in his epistle, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we claim we have not sinned, we make [Christ] out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives" (1:8,10). What many may not realize is that this authoritative reinterpretation puts the Presbyterian Church (USA) in danger of making Christ Himself into a liar. That is not the place for those who love the Lord and are one with his mission to save the lost.

We cannot overlook the fact that this interpretation simply sets aside the 7th commandment as "non-essential" (certainly not God's opinion); that it supports the opportunity for the elevation of leaders who do not have a biblical understanding of sin, salvation, nor authority; and it opens the door to any number of possible scruples when it comes to ordaining leaders. What else may be considered "non-essential"? Lordship of Jesus? It's up to the presbyteries and sessions now. And in case you think that is simply outrageous, I will direct you to the following article relating the atheist who joined the Presbyterian church in Texas earlier this year:

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=5/1/2006.

Ordaining leaders into the Body of Christ is not something to be taken lightly at any time. It is of utmost importance to this body and to God (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-2:15). For these reasons, this action by the General Assembly has created a crisis in this denomination, and division, disunity, and impurity will surely result.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
It is very important that we discern together with faithful Christians throughout the denomination and each presbytery. We are called into a community of believers, and Christ leads his church that way. The Spirit will give us direction and discernment as we look together at how to biblically respond to this crisis. Groups within the denomination that represent those faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be meeting in the coming weeks and months for this very purpose. The same is true for the members of this presbytery. We must allow for the discernment process to work.

This is not a time to leave or retreat from the life of the church because of disillusionment or alarm. Rather, it is a time to really engage ourselves into the life of the church, and to renew our commitment call as followers of Jesus Christ. While we can certainly mourn the infringement of the world into the church, we must remember that God is sovereign. He is the Lord of his Church, and he isn't slowing down because of this. In fact, he's going to use this crisis as a way to strengthen and refine his church within the body of the PC(USA). Praise God!

"For there must be divisions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized."
 -1 Corinthians 11:19

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."
 
 -2 Timothy 4:3-4
 
Matt Milligan, Pastor
First Presbyterian Church

FURTHER RESOURCES:
www.robgagnon.net - He has written the definitive work on homosexuality and the Bible. This website has tons of resources, including a response to the book, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality.

http://www.presbycoalition.org/GA5statement.htm - A statement of response from the various renewal groups in the denomination.

Other articles in response:
http://www.pres-outlook.com/tabid/680/Article/1336/Default.aspx
http://www.speakingamystery.com/extras.html (video clips of the ordination debate)
http://presbycoalition.org/pupadvice1.htm
http://www.ird-renew.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=401617&ct=2675287
http://www.ga2006.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=229&Itemid=1

The Task Force Report itself:
http://www.pcusa.org/peaceunitypurity/resources/finalreport.pdf