To the Editor:

Mr. Apel responds from his very difficult experience at Mt. Auburn Church, from which he concludes that it is one's own walk with God that ultimately matters. But given that, and given the historic tendency we have embraced in the Presbyterian Church to tolerate ambiguity, he asks how can we tolerate G-6.0106b:

"So our BoO does have this statement that reflects the purity expressed by the far right and this continues to be affirmed by the simple majority in votes. So my question to Mr. Koster and others is how can one claim that the PC(USA) honors ambiguity as long as G-6.0106b remains in the BoO? Or do those words mean something else than what they really say? It's not a question of purity or ambiguity, but of honesty I think."

I would respond to Mr. Apel in two ways. The first has to do with the meaning of affiliation. When we choose to be a member of any group, we accept the norms of that group as ours. Indeed, these norms are what defines the group. This is true of the church. But I do not believe it presumes that one accepts the norms of the group without reservation, only that one is willing to accept those group norms that vary from personal beliefs. In short, one takes the good with the bad.

With the church, it is a far more serious proposition than, for example, joining some fraternal group or sports team. For I believe the Bible tells us that we are defined by the groups we join, that the notion of an individual outside of a group is foreign to Scripture. I believe that by virtue of accepting membership in a church, we share in that church's blessings and cursings. I believe that I shall incur the judgment of God for the sins of the Presbyterian Church of which I am a member. (There may be a few blessings that go along with it.)

So, though our personal walk with God is important, it is not the sum of it. I believe we walk arm in arm.

As to G-6.0106b, I believe the problem is not that it is there. I believe the problem is in the enforcement. A church has the right and the responsibility to set standards for membership and for ordination, and these standards can and should include behavioral and theological limits. If G-6.0106b said merely that we may not ordain practicing homosexuals, it would at least be more honest. But I doubt that we could do that, because someone would ask why just practicing homosexuals – how about heterosexuals living together – how about people who cheat on their income tax – how about . . . ? We are, after all, Reformed, and insist we are all sinners. Somewhere in the process, a tricky little phrase was 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." That sentence made the provision theologically palatable.

The shame is that the addition was a ruse. Apparently a bone thrown to those who insisted that we are all sinners. The shame is that so far the provision has been used to filter out only self-affirmed practicing homosexual persons. Mr. Jensen has filed no case against a Presbytery or Session that has ordained a person who plays golf on Sunday rather than attending to the Sabbath.

In short, I believe the problem of G-6.0106b is not that it excludes the ordination of practicing homosexual persons, but that practicing homosexual persons (and those in sympathy with them) are singled out. G-6.0106b is per se, only unwise and probably untenable. The use of it is a travesty. And when I stand before God in judgment, I believe God will hold this against us all, against me.