A current issue in the PC(USA) is that a few individuals and congregations not only disagree with G-6.0106b but have also openly disobeyed it and stated publicly that they will continue to do so. The now-famous G-6.0106b paragraph states that fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness is a standard for officers of the church. This standard is not a suggestion, or a provision to be followed "ordinarily," or if one chooses. It has been tested and re-tested, and is now a settled part of our PC(USA) constitution.

Nevertheless, a few feel bound by conscience to disobey--not just to work to change the standard, but unable to obey it at all.

The result is a painful circumstance. Most Presbyterians desire to be gracious and forbearing as far as possible. We are not punitive by nature and fear being judgmental. We know we are saved by grace or not saved at all. Still, it means something to be a Presbyterian. We affirm certain things about faith, and we affirm certain things about faithful living. One of those tenets of faithful living is that God desires men and women to live in fidelity in heterosexual marriage or in chastity in singleness. That has been a historic conviction and is now codified in our constitution.

Being a Presbyterian is not the only choice among denominations, but if one chooses to be a Presbyterian, then PFR affirms, along with our Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, that one is bound by the mandatory provisions of our constitution. Mr. Kirkpatrick, in a letter to the session of the Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati, Ohio, said the session does not have the authority to "disregard any mandatory provisions of the Book of Order" and "is not free to ignore the standards set out in our Book of Order."

The challenge facing our denomination right now is to pastorally yet firmly make clear that our constitution is not optional for Presbyterians. Many don't like the "firmly" part. But it is impossible to conceive of a future for the Presbyterian Church if everyone is free to pick and choose which parts of the constitution they will adhere to, based simply on what is right in each one's own eyes. Imagine some saying, "I don't think we should baptize infants," others "I don't think we should ordain women," others "I think we should have complete control of our property," and on and on.

PFR believes those in authority should exercise their authority pastorally yet in faithfulness to our constitution and regardless of their personal opinions. We trust they will do so. If gaps in our disciplinary procedures somehow allow some to circumvent the constitution, those gaps need to be closed through the amendment process.

The church has spoken with exceptional clarity on this issue, and that clarity ought and needs to be understood and followed by all Presbyterians. It is our hope that those who disagree with G-6.0106b, or any provision of our constitution, will work within our constitution and not undermine it.

As reNEWS goes to press, the judicial process is underway in several presbyteries due to public expressions of defiance of G-6.0106b. These presbyteries include:

* Baltimore Presbytery, a case involving the Rev. Don Stroud;

* Cincinnati Presbytery, a case involving the Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church;

* Redwoods Presbytery, a case involving the ordination of Katie Morrison.

In addition, the Dobbs Ferry Presbyterian Church in Hudson River Presbytery has issued statements of past and continuing non-compliance with the constitution.

Dr. Henry B. Greene chairs the General Assembly Team for the PFR Issues Ministry. He is pastor of Central Presbyterian Church, Merced, California, and a member of the PFR Board of Directors.