The Covenant Network of Presbyterians has recently released an updated version of their resource “Guidelines for Examination.” (alert: it is 2.6 MB in size so be careful clicking this link to down load it)  I am not familiar with any previous version(s) of this document so I can’t speak to the revisions other than to say that it does include the results of the 217th GA in 2006.  But I found this to be an interesting read (at least for a GA Junkie).  It is 64 pages long, well written and footnoted (six pages of them) and presents their side of the debate well.  I probably could have done without the abundance of stock photos illustrating it, but it would make it more appealing to more casual readers.

On the one hand this document contains nothing new.  If you have followed the debate in the PC(USA) for any length of time now you will find all the usual material on the pro-ordination side:  Sessions and presbyteries can neither add nor ignore standards; the question of essentials, subscription, and scruples; the “chastity” versus “celibacy” question; what practices the confessions call sin; whether homosexual orientation is “natural”; what was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah; is the PC(USA) version of the Heidelberg Catechism accurately translated.  Their viewpoint is clearly discussed and documented.  (If you are a casual reader remember there are opposing arguments on all of these, which is why the PC(USA) and its predecessor denominations have been discussing this for 30 years without a mutually satisfactory resolution.)

I would commend to anyone active in this debate chapter 6 which has a series of case studies covering a variety of interesting examples and asks whether the individual described is involved in a “self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin”  and whether or not they should be  ordained as an officer in the church.  These cases are well developed and cover a variety of modern situations which do raise questions about our behavior and how it is, or is not, informed by scripture and confessions.  Only two of the cases specifically relate to ordination of GLBT persons but also include environmental responsibility, recreational gambling, active military service, literal interpretation of scripture, and divorce to name a few.

I did find these case studies thought provoking and challenging to think about although I did feel that at times I wanted more information or to engage the fictional individual being examined for ordination in conversation about their position.  These case studies are a good reminder that while we have some generality in our ordination standards we tend to focus on one standard: sexual orientation.

However, as much as I found the case studies interesting and thought provoking, as I read through them I could not help but wonder if these presented a red-herring distracting the reader from the real controversy being addressed.  The book contains a whole chapter on “GLBT Disclosures” and another on “Considering Sexual Practice” as well as the chapter on “Putting it Together.”  There are no chapters on divorce, military service, or recreational gambling.  No one can say that this resource is not about ordination standards relating to sexual practice.  And while several of the study cases do present situations with scriptural basis for discussion (divorce, observing the sabbath), most are more confession oriented and/or deal with scripture in much more general terms (environmental responsibility, scriptural literal interpretation).  This is not to say that they are not important theological and ethical questions that have been dealt with for centuries, like military service.  But I felt that in a direct comparison few if any of the cases really had the gravity and relevance of the present debate.  (Yes, I do realize that there will be arguments with me on this one.)

So, here is a resource that presents one viewpoint well, that contains some challanging information, and that can generate good discussion.  But keep it in perspective.  For an alternative view the Presbyterian Coalition has prepared a response to a 2003 document from the Covenant Network.