Peace,Unity,and Purity and the Presbyterian Church’s Fifty-Year Journey on Human Sexuality

Framing the Question of Human Sexuality through The Lens of Ordination

Ordination has served as a barometer for every matter of ecclesial and theological conflict. Ordination makes a declaration regarding the one who is being ordained; it is also a reflection on the church that does the ordaining. A denominational task force affirmed that “The most intractable conflicts in the Presbyterian church often result in disputes over ordination.” ¹ Beyond individual considerations such as spiritual fitness, doctrinal adherence, and academic capacity, the church’s history is dotted with debates on categories. Who may be ordained—male or female, for example, married, single or divorced, persons of color, and now, more recently, queer or straight?

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ordains people to three offices, or “ordered ministries,” each reflecting New Testament understandings of service. “Ministers” are charged with preaching and worship leadership and pastoral and administrative functions within the life of the church. Elders (or “ruling elders”) serve on the Session and oversee the life of a particular congregation. Deacons provide “compassion, witness and service” ² within a congregation. The roles of ministers and ruling elders are derived from the New Testament understanding of presbyter, or “elder,” hence the denomination’s name and governance practices. The church articulates no hierarchy of prominence in the status of the three ordered ministries.

Ruling elders and deacons are ordained by particular congregations; once ordained, they may serve in any congregation. Ministers are ordained by presbyteries (regional bodies of congregations), and, again, may serve throughout the church. Presbyterians understand that God calls people to ordained service, and that that call must be affirmed by the people.

Once that call is confirmed, and a candidate has successfully undergone some process to determine fitness, those to be ordained are asked to respond to a series of constitutional questions, called ordination vows. The current vows/constitutional questions are answered by all who are to be ordained. Embedded in these questions are many of the issues swirling about the church’s debates on ordination and human sexuality:

Specific questions for ruling elders, deacons and ministers then follow.

When the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has asked whether lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Presbyterians ⁴ may be ordained to any of the three ordered ministries, the ordination vows have served as a lens into the nature of the debates. Question b. highlights a commitment to biblical authority and interpretation. Questions c. and d. ask an ordinand to confirm the teaching authority of the church’s theological tradition as expressed in its confessions, without specifying what the “essential tenets of the Reformed faith” are and how one is therefore to be “instructed and led” by them. How does freedom of conscience, for example, function within this vow? Question e. confirms the role of the church’s governing beliefs and behaviors, its polity, in all matters of church life, including ordination practices.

Yet it is question g. (“Do you promise to further the peace, unity, and purity of the church?”) that became the primary lens through which the denomination most rigorously engaged the ordination and human sexuality question, and which served as the hinge point for the church’s present stance. ⁵

A Fifty-Year Conversation

In 1966, the Council of Church and Society of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA) launched a study on “sexuality and the human community.” A task force was formed, whose report was presented to the 1970 General Assembly. ⁶ This report, received but not endorsed by the General Assembly, covered a wide range of topics, including contraception, abortion, and marriage. It represents the first sustained denominational effort to engage what it called “male and female homosexuality.” Noting a cultural and ecclesial “restlessness,” the report asked: “Has not Protestantism fostered false impressions and false information about sexuality?” Even though it sought to correct those errors by turning “repeatedly to the theological issues and questions of Biblical tradition which have informed the church’s view of human sexuality through the ages,” ⁷ it concluded that “We can find no systematic and ethical guidance for our time from a method of Biblical interpretation which relies solely on the laws or stories of the Bible.” ⁸

In terms of its understanding of “male and female homosexuality,” the task affirmed that “there is a difference between homosexuality as a condition of personal existence and homosexualism as explicit homosexual behavior.” The report, however, understood all homosexual behavior to be “sin” and viewed heterosexual marriage as the norm. At the same time, the report was critical of efforts to label “homosexual behavior” as taboo, or to criminalize it; subsequently the General Assembly called for the “elimination of laws governing the private sexual behavior of consenting adults.” Finally, the report acknowledged that “the state of knowledge about homosexuality is far from developed in our society” and urged the church to “support further and more adequate research into this phase of human sexual behavior and to participate actively in the theological and ethical reflection on the matter which may be prompted by the new insights resulting from such research.” ⁹

At the 1974 UPCUSA General Assembly, David Sindt famously raised a sign that posed the question “Is anyone else out there gay?” and the 1970s witnessed a notable acceleration of study and debate. The debate often took on legislative forms that centered on ordination. Had the original trajectory continued, focusing on the ethical and theological dimensions of human sexuality, with insights on identity and covenantal relationships preceding the focus on ordination, the following decades would have unfolded in markedly different ways.

Nonetheless, as more and more LGBTQ persons presented themselves for ordination, presbyteries continued to seek advice from the General Assembly as to whether “practicing homosexuals” could be ordained. In 1976, the General Assembly formed a task force to study homosexuality, continuing the work of the earlier one, with one key difference being a focus on ordination.

Concurrent with the task force’s work, in 1976 the UPCUSA General Assembly passed a resolution to “reaffirm our adherence to the moral law of God…that…the practice of homosexuality is sin….” The General Assembly at the same time affirmed that “any self-righteous attitude of others who would condemn persons who have so sinned is also sin.” ¹⁰ The next year, the General Assembly affirmed “the need of the Church to stand for just treatment of homosexual persons in our society in regard to their civil liberties, equal rights, and protection under the law from social and economic discrimination.” ¹¹ These positions—affirming church membership and civil rights on one hand while prohibiting ordination and labeling homosexuality a sin on the other—would continue to foster a confused and muddled environment that sent mixed messages to the church.

The Task Force on Homosexuality’s highly anticipated 1978 report included a background paper, policy statement, recommendations, and a minority report. The majority statement proposed a shift in ordination practice, advocating for the General Assembly to allow presbyteries to make their own decisions regarding ordination. The minority statement, supported by five of the nineteen members, sought to maintain the status quo and advised against allowing “self-avowed, practicing homosexuals” to be ordained at all.

The 1978 General Assembly voted to approve the minority statement, concluding that “unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination.” The church further stated that homosexuality was “not God’s wish for humanity…. Even where the homosexual orientation has not been consciously sought or chosen, it is neither a gift from God nor a state nor a condition like race; it is a result of our living in a fallen world.” The action continued: “The repentant homosexual person who finds the power of Christ redirecting his or her sexual desires toward a married homosexual commitment, or finds God’s power to control his or her desires and to adopt a celibate lifestyle, can certainly be ordained…our present understanding of God’s will precludes the ordination of persons who do not repent of homosexual practice.” “Gays and lesbians” could be church members, and “celibate” gay and lesbian persons could be considered for ordination. ¹² While ordination was prohibited, the General Assembly also strongly endorsed civil rights, calling upon church members to “work for the passage of laws that prohibit discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations based on the sexual orientation of a person.” ¹³

Summarizing the 1978 debate, Douglas Nave writes that “Adoption of the 1978 ‘definitive guidance’ generated deep and lasting controversy in the church. Much of the debate…reflected disagreements about whether gay/lesbian relationships are necessarily sinful or should be a bar to ordination…Many felt that the policy violated freedom of conscience, and the duty Presbyterians have to show each other mutual forbearance in matters not ‘essential’ to the faith. Some felt that the prohibition was inconsistent with constitutional requirements that full rights of church membership (including eligibility for lay office) be extended to all persons on profession of faith, and that church sessions and presbyteries be empowered to determine the fitness of their own members.” ¹⁴

Despite the vote of the 1978 General Assembly, matters remained far from settled. In 1987, the General Assembly commissioned a report to examine all aspects of the church’s approach to human sexuality, and the Special Committee on Human Sexuality began its three-year charge in 1988. The culmination of that work was a major report entitled “Keeping Body and Soul Together: Sexuality, Spirituality and Social Justice.” The very title of the report indicated seismic shifts that began to address the church’s bifurcated understanding of identity, orientation and behavior. ¹⁵ Among the report’s affirmations were:

A strong committee minority report, however, took exception to the committee’s majority stance. The minority report stated that “Given the single voice with which Scriptures and the church have spoken on these matters, we would need overwhelming reasons to deter from the historic stand of the church on the matter of homosexual behavior…in sufficient justification to depart from the historic Christian position….” ¹⁷ While the majority report called for openness to ordination, and made the case that a “yes” to membership and a “no” to ordination was inconsistent, the minority disagreed.

The 1991 General Assembly overwhelmingly sided with the minority report, rejecting the emphasis on justice and the spirituality of human sexuality in “Keeping Body and Soul Together.” While acknowledging the “pain” present throughout the church, on “all sides,” the General Assembly affirmed the church’s present biblical teachings on marriage as a covenant between “one man and one woman” and the church’s earlier positions on homosexuality and ordination. ¹⁸

Again, the debate persisted, and in 1993 the General Assembly called for a three-year study and dialogue on human sexual behavior and ordination. The result of that effort became known as proposed “Amendment B,” passed by the General Assembly in 1996 and subsequently adopted by the church to become Book of Order G-6.0106b. The adoption of G-6.0106b launched an increasingly intense season of legislative efforts and judicial processes, as the church grappled with a prohibitive provision now codified in its constitution.

G-6.0106b stated that “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 (emphasis added). 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.”

After experiencing the newly adopted provision for a year, in 1997 opponents of G -6.0106b introduced a new proposed amendment, seeking to replace the language of “fidelity and chastity” with “fidelity and integrity.” This proposed amendment sought to uncouple the prohibitions on particular behavior—in this case same-gender intimacy or heterosexual intimacy outside of marriage—with a comprehensive approach to identity and relationships. The measure was also supported by extensive political organization across the church. ¹⁹ The proposed amendment was approved by the 1997 General Assembly but failed to receive needed presbytery votes for its adoption, and therefore was defeated.

The dawn of the twenty-first century witnessed competing efforts to change the church’s standards or to maintain the status quo. Rather than attempting to amend the church’s current policy, a 2001 attempt took a different tack, seeking to remove language about human sexuality altogether while emphasizing a current provision: “In addition to possessing the necessary gifts and abilities, natural and acquired, those who undertake particular ministries should be persons of strong faith, dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Their manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world.” ²⁰ The General Assembly adopted the effort to delete 6-6.0106b while maintaining G-6.0106a, but a significant portion of the presbyteries rejected it, continuing the pattern of local presbyteries defeating General Assembly actions.

In the midst of a volatile denominational environment that had some contemplating schism, the more notable General Assembly action taken in 2001 was the establishment of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church, a twenty-member entity reflecting theological, racial and ethnic diversity within the church. ²¹ The Theological Task Force was presented with a four point charge: christology, biblical authority and interpretation, human sexuality and ordination, and power. ²² It met for five years, visited presbyteries across the country and produced a prodigious set of educational resources. Key findings in the task force’s final report included:

The Theological Task Force also reached “(r)eady agreement on several points,” including:

The Theological Task Force was charged with developing a “process and instrument” to help the church navigate its current conflicts, and it did so by proposing an “authoritative interpretation” of section G-6.0108 of the Book of Order. The proposal sought to reach back into the denomination’s historic practices by affirming that the constitution articulates church-wide standards for ordination, and also affirming that ordaining bodies, “acting as corporate expressions of the church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards…” on a case-by-case basis. ²⁶ Departures—of belief or behavior—were to be adjudicated by the ordaining body itself.

The effect of this proposal would be to allow presbyteries or congregations to make decisions as candidates presented themselves, applying standards individually rather than categorically. The practical impact would be that while some LGBTQ persons might be prohibited from ordination in one context, ordination could happen in another. The Theological Task Force hoped that the proposed authoritative interpretation, “by bringing renewed emphasis to the process of examination and application of standards, will in fact lead to more careful and balanced decisions about fitness for ordination, thereby promoting the purity of the church and the quality of its leadership,” serving “peace, unity, and purity…no matter what standards are in place in the future.” ²⁷

After rigorous debate throughout the church and at the 2006 General Assembly, the report of the Theological Task Force, including its controversial Recommendation 5, passed by a 59% to 41% margin, thus paving the way for LGBTQ persons to be constitutionally considered for ordination.

The adoption of the Theological Task Force’s Recommendation 5 did not end the church’s debate, however. Far from it. Some affinity groups within the church were dissatisfied that the proposal did not go far enough in allowing LGBTQ persons to be ordained, while other groups were displeased at the possibility of any LGBTQ ordination. The hoped-for “peace, unity and purity” in the church remained aspirational.

In 2008, again the General Assembly voted to overturn the “fidelity and chastity” clause found in Book of Order G-6.0106b, while again a majority of presbyteries defeated the effort. This was the third legislative effort that failed to garner presbytery support (1997, 2001, and 2008). Finally, though, the 2010 General Assembly voted to replace G-6.0106b with new language; in May 2011, the proposed change achieved the requisite number of presbytery votes to be adopted. The provision “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…” was replaced with language that captured the 1978 Task Force on Human Sexuality’s intent (then rejected) and the Theological Task Force’s Recommendation 5. The new G-6.0106b stated: “Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life. The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all the requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation. Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

The new provision did not mention sexual orientation or behavior at all, but rather allowed ordaining bodies to assess a candidate’s overall fitness. Examinations could not inquire about a person’s relational or behavioral status, but if information was volunteered, that information could be considered.

LGBTQ Presbyterians, previously “closeted,” could now openly be considered for ordination. ²⁸ Though a floodgate of LGBTQ ordinations did not happen, some did, as congregations and presbyteries sought to apply the new provisions. At the same time, a new affinity group within the denomination—the Fellowship of Presbyterians—was founded, and a new denomination—the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians—was established for those either dissatisfied with the church’s new measure or unable to remain part of the denomination.

Given accelerating cultural and ecclesial changes, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) continued to make progress on the ordination front, and now on the marriage front. In 2014, the General Assembly approved an overture to redefine marriage and an authoritative interpretation to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in states where it was legally permitted (prior to the 2015 Supreme Court ruling). The former constitutional language defined marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman; new language included this affirmation: “Marriage involves a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman (emphasis added)….” This re-definition of marriage was approved by a majority of presbyteries in 2015. While same-sex marriage, simply stated as marriage between “two people,” was now permitted, the church also confirmed that ministers unwilling to preside at weddings, for same-gender couples or otherwise, would not be compelled to do so. ²⁹

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s legislative journey on matters of human sexuality concludes for now with several actions at its 2018 General Assembly. These actions reflect significant evolution since 1978 when “homosexual behavior” was declared to be sinful. One measure clarified the denomination’s position on “religious liberty” and reaffirmed that “religious freedom” could not be used as a rationale to discriminate against anyone for reasons including “sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or gender expression.” Two other overtures looked inward at the church’s history, acknowledging and apologizing for past behavior. Overture 11–12 admitted that “The church has failed to understand fully and to celebrate adequately the full spectrum of gender embodied in God’s creation. As a result, we have participated in systemic and targeted discrimination against transgender people, and we have been complicit in violence against them.” ³⁰

Overture 11-13 moved beyond the neutral, permission-giving language of 2011 to language that first apologized and then affirmed. The full text of the overture is included here to serve as a coda for the church’s nearly fifty-year legislative journey. Please note as well that the nomenclature has evolved, from “homosexual” to “LGBTQIA+” in reference to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (or questioning), intersex, asexual (or allies).

Theology Matters

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s fifty-year journey on human sexuality is in no way complete. While official language has moved from “condemning” to “celebrating,” congregations and presbyteries may still decline to ordain someone, per the church’s constitutional provision. And just as women continue to confront the so-called “stained-glass ceiling” in terms of calls to certain leadership positions, so the church remains a long way from regularizing calls for LGBTQ persons to serve.

And yet progress, surely, has been made. Fundamentally, people are being ordained who would not have been considered for ordination a decade ago. That fundamental shift has been supported by developments in understanding of human identity, ³² biblical authority and interpretation, ³³ and the church’s understandings and practices around ordination. ³⁴

And the church’s theological insights have evolved, as the church explores in new ways the basic questions of who God is and who we are before God. The English minister of the 1700s John Robinson was correct in affirming that “God had yet more truth and more light” to bring to bear on our understandings of faith (a phrase co-opted by a Presbyterian affinity group working toward ordination openness). ³⁵

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is a confessional church that has adopted a Book of Confessions containing the church’s official theological statements. In 2014, the General Assembly adopted a new, historically accurate and ecumenically accepted translation of the Heidelberg Catechism. This included a revised Question 87, which was based on mistranslations of the original German and Latin texts.

Finally, a Litany of Questions

While the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s fifty-year journey on human sexuality has frequently found its home in the work of committees and task forces and votes at General Assemblies and presbyteries, the polity narrative rests on a theological foundation. Theology at its best allows matters of substance to remain works in progress. The church is “always being reformed” (semper reformanda), and ongoing theological dialogue and discernment allow the church to be open to new insights, “more light.” In that spirit, this litany of questions might allow for faithful and fruitful dialogue to continue:

These questions are best answered in community, over time, yet some preliminary responses might be helpful as the church faces the next fifty years of its journey. What can the church learn from this often conflicted narrative as it also addresses declining membership and a re-located cultural position? Can the church learn, for example, from its debates on human sexuality as it engages the issues of racism or the #metoo movement?

The Presbyterian Church’s fifty-year learning curve on matters of human sexuality was steep, and it remains so in many ways. This includes shifts in language usage—pronouns, for example—and also the way that the church re-conceives matters as diverse as wedding liturgies and restroom usage. This is not “P.C.” cultural accommodation, but rather the church being open to the Spirit and the new duties these new occasions teach. That allows the church to re-frame useful words such as “fidelity,” “integrity,” “anarchy,” “confusion,” “alienation,” and—especially—“reconciliation” for this new moment. Once the church moves past uneasy toleration and acceptance to a deeper understanding of identity and orientation, its commitment to baptism as the primary credential will take deeper root. That will be a work in progress for many years to come, as the Presbyterian Church’s women’s ordination narrative suggests.

The Reformed tradition has sought to take the Bible seriously. When it has done so, it has discovered complexity and depth. Nowhere does the Bible say that LGBTQ people should, or should not, be ordained. The issue of interpretation and application, therefore, means landing in a place—absent interpretive unanimity—between biblical literalism and saying that Scripture has no bearing whatsoever. When people of faith prayerfully study the Bible together, especially in diverse communities, positive things can happen. Exegetical echo chambers do not serve the church well.

The church has changed its mind historically regarding ordination—women, divorced people, persons of color—and it has changed its mind now. There are no automatic constitutional barriers to LGBTQ persons being ordained, and Presbyterian ministers may now preside at same-sex weddings that can be held in Presbyterian congregations. But like any justice movement that unfolds in the church, the path will not be linear. There will be fits and starts, locally and nationally, progress and setbacks, as more light continues to illumine understandings and as new provisions are implemented in particular settings. Churches change slowly, more slowly than a culture that through many examples (and some counter-examples) is moving to a new place. For the church, new constitutional provisions may seem like a light switch has been flipped to the “on” position, but in reality, the more apt image is an old cassette or CD player with a volume dial that is turned gradually, over time, until the new desired volume is reached.

Among the fits and starts the church has faced has been the departure of congregations to other Presbyterian/Reformed communions and the departure of church members, formally or informally. These decisions, faithfully made, have nonetheless strained the body, as debate partners have now separated, along with future generations. Those realities should be lamented, and also accepted. The Theological Task Force’s Recommendation 5, hard wrought in its effort to keep the church together, was simply not acceptable to all. Perhaps that was inevitable, and perhaps hastened the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s eventual change. The United Methodist Church is currently contemplating a different strategy, a “protocol” that will essentially split the denomination into two new bodies, one (to use broad language) more “inclusive” and one more “traditional.” This new approach codifies schism and two opposing views, but it also seeks to avoid the deep conflict other denominations have experienced. Whether it is an effective strategy or not will be borne out over time.

Provisional response to those questions invites, finally, a return to the ordination vow, now being responded to by a more diverse and inclusive cohort of people than when the question was first proposed: “Do you promise to further the peace, unity and purity of the church?” Is peace more than the absence of conflict within the church? Is unity more than mere uniformity? Is purity reflective of belief, or behavior? How can doctrinal purity be achieved in a denomination whose theological roots—Reformed—confirm that belief is never static, and whose confessional standards themselves reflect varieties of belief? Do the three qualities—peace, unity and purity—live in dynamic relationship or intractable tension? ⁴⁰

In 2006, the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church affirmed that “Peace, unity, and purity are gifts of the Spirit to the church. They are also hard-won virtues for any church….” ⁴¹ That has certainly been the case for LGBTQ Presbyterians called to ordained service in the church, and those who have supported the journey. Even now, there is progress to be made as the church continues to discern and as decisions and affirmations are woven into the church’s fabric. Fifty years is a brief period in Christian history; nonetheless, the segment of Christ’s body called the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has witnessed tremendous change in its teachings and practices regarding human sexuality, living into the hope and promise of baptism and the affirmation that all, without exception, are beloved children of God.