Dear Editor:

The letters debating the words "chastity" and "singleness" have been most
interesting. But in each scenario I think it is easy to find some loophole
or flaw in the logic and I can see why Dr. Hunsinger maintains that
G-6.0106b is poorly written.

Rev. Campbell in his letter discusses the meaning of singleness and how it
means being separate from others. However, if one is to follow this
reasoning then I think it goes beyond gays and lesbians. For we also have
the single heterosexuals who may be engaged or dating. They may hold hands in church and even kiss. Likewise they may lovingly embrace and show other forms of outward affection. Using Rev. Campbell's definition of singleness it seems to me that this type of behavior (whether public or private) is also forbidden for those ordained per G-6.0106b. But I think most Presbyterians would find such a mode of thinking to be outdated and
something that throws us back to the middle ages.

The fact is that heterosexual unmarried people who are engaged or dating are already emulating marriage (whether or not intercourse is practiced or not). People in church often refer to them as couples. The same is true for gays and lesbians who are in relationships or date. And those relationships may or may not involve intercourse. So one cannot simply conclude on the basis of outward appearances whether or not the ordained persons in question are violating G-6.0106b. If such a standard of outward appearances is used, then Mr. Jensen and others better get busy filing more charges if they are indeed passionate about seeing G-6.0106b enforced to the letter. And I would expect that there would be very few church sessions that could claim they are not in violation.

Beyond the matter of outward appearances we still have the issue of what constitutes acceptable intimate behavior between two people (gay or straight) who are single? What really qualifies as chaste or "purity of body"? If two single people engage in intimate kissing are they really keeping their bodies pure?

Everyone always focuses on intercourse but forgets that there are many other forms of expression that may be used. And the Scriptures and the Confessions are not explicit about what all of those may be. And I doubt that most people in the PC (USA) even want to think about this or go to the trouble of defining all of these scenarios. Likewise if G-6.0106b is administered equally (as our courts say it must be) and all persons are questioned extensively about their intimate behaviors, I seriously doubt there will be many officers left in the church. No one in their right mind would want to be subject to such interrogation.

The evidence is clear. It is very unlikely there will ever be a clear concensus on how G-6.0106b should be interpreted in the numerous types of relationships and situations that can occur. Nor does the majority of the church have the passion to enforce this to the letter. Having said that I think there is a better path where we follow the Presbyterian tradition of agreeing to disagree agreeably on what otherwise is a no-win situation in order to maintain unity and purpose as Christ's body of faith.

Yours in Christ,