Category Archives: judicial commission

“A Vast Diversity Of Interpretation” — Redwoods Presbytery Expresses Their Disagreement With The Spahr II Decision

4 Replies


The biggest news in the Presbyverse right now is the motion passed by the Presbytery of the Redwoods objecting to the decision and punishment and failure to overturn those on appeal in the most recent disciplinary case against the Rev. Jane Spahr (the Spahr II decision).

In case you have missed it, this past Tuesday was the first stated presbytery meeting of Redwoods Presbytery since the PC(USA) General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission heard the appeal in this case and upheld the decision from the Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission trial. Teaching Elder Spahr was found to have committed “the offense of representing that a same-sex ceremony was a marriage by performing a ceremony in which two women were married under the laws of the State of California and thereafter signing their Certificate of Marriage as the person solemnizing the marriage.” In addition, she was accused of persisting in this since the first disciplinary action (Spahr I decision) and of violating her ordination vows by failing to be subject to the authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order.

At the Presbytery meeting, in the Stated Clerk’s report of the GAPJC decision, a motion was introduced that laid out a series of reasons the judicial decisions were wrong and concluded with this resolution:

Be it RESOLVED that the Presbytery of the Redwoods opposes imposition of
the rebuke set forth in the decision dated August 27, 2010, as
inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Constitution of the
Presbyterian Church (USA), and the faithful life of ministry lived out
in this Presbytery.

The full text of the resolution is available from the Presbytery (with a follow-up letter from the Stated Clerk), MLP web site or Mary Holder Naegeli’s blog.

Let me begin with some polity observations.  We need to be clear at the onset that the Presbytery resolution is an objection or protest. The rebuke has been made and registered.  The Presbyterian News Service article about the resolution says this from the Presbytery Stated Clerk:

“Perhaps the majority, perhaps all of them, thought they had removed the
rebuke but I don’t see how it is in the power of the presbytery to do
that,” Conover said, adding that he had about 30 minutes notice on the
Clark motion before the beginning of the meeting.

The article goes on to say that Laurie Griffith, manager of judicial process in the Office of the General Assembly affirms this as well with the article saying that “The rebuke stands, whether Redwoods Presbytery reads it publicly or not.”

Let’s drill down on this for a moment. In Book of Order section D-11.0403e about the degree of censure it ends with this line: “Following such determination and in an open meeting, the moderator of
the session or permanent judicial commission shall then pronounce the
censure.” In the decision Charlotte v. Jacobs (GAPJC decision 215-09) the Commission clarifies that “Unless there is a stay of enforcement in place, censure takes effect immediately upon the pronouncement of the decision at trial…” The Presbytery PJC decision did specify a stay in the event of appeals so with the exhaustion of the appeals the rebuke pronounced at the conclusion of trial on August 27, 2010 would go into effect with the decision by the GAPJC on February 20th, 2012.

Bottom line – they can express opposition to the rebuke, but under our polity the rebuke decided upon and initially imposed 21 months ago by the Presbytery through their own judicial commission became effective earlier this year.

What have they done? First and foremost, the Presbytery by a 74-18 vote has effectively registered a protest to the current authoritative interpretation of the PC(USA) Constitution. And, if I understand the news reports correctly (and I would welcome someone who was there to provide more accurate information in the comments) the resolution did not stop the Stated Clerk from reporting and distributing the decision, but it stopped the decision, including the rebuke from being read. Based on usual practice the rebuke has been read at lease once and probably twice before after the PPJC trial and the SPJC appeal.

I have spent a good deal of time in the last 36 hours working through GAPJC decisions and the Annotated Book of Order to see if I can find a precedent. I am not aware of one but I invite anyone to comment if they are aware of a previous similar presbytery action. From reports on-line it appears that others are not aware of a precedent either. The Louisville Courier-Journal has this in Peter Smith’s column: “Jerry Van Marter, director of Presbyterian News Service, said he knows
of no other case where a presbytery has refused to carry out a court
directive.” And in her blog Mary Holder Naegeli, an experienced watcher of these things, says “I cannot recall in almost 25 years as an ordained minister ever witnessing open defiance of a direct PJC order.”

What next?  The PNS article says:

Laurie Griffith, manager of judicial process in the
Office of the General Assembly said there “are two possible options for
redress if anyone wanted to raise the issue” of the presbytery’s
refusal.

“Each presbytery submits a ‘compliance report’ to
the GAPJC, which is reported for information to each General Assembly,”
she told the Presbyterian News Service, but it’s always been just pro
forma.”

The other option, Griffith said, “could be a
remedial complaint against the presbytery, but remedial complaints are
not usually used to challenge disciplinary processes.”

My only comments on the remedial complaint is that 1) while they are not usually used to challenge disciplinary processes this resolution appears to be without precedent so “usually” is the operative word and 2) it strikes me that this is not so much an issue with the disciplinary process itself as with the Presbytery’s response to it and enforcement of it.

[Please see update at the end of this] Now, I want to mention one non-polity issue that – if correct – I do find disturbing. Reports have mentioned a significant media presence at the presbytery meeting for this item.  If the media were there just expecting the reading of the decision, that is one thing.  There seems to be a feeling, and I have no independent confirmation of this, that the media was made aware of the counter-motion in advance and were there for a sensational story. In itself that is still OK, we have open meetings… except note what the Stated Clerk said above – that he “only had about 30 minutes notice [of the motion] before the beginning of the meeting.” Presumably the same goes for the Presbytery Moderator who had to handle this business. (If the Moderator had notice but the Clerk did not then the Moderator and the Clerk need to talk more.) It strikes me as a break with our much-valued “mutual forbearance” and “peace, unity and purity” if the mainstream media was given notice to be there but those charged with the decently and orderly conduct of the meeting were not.
[Important update: Did get information from someone who was there and it was their impression that the media was there for the reading of the censure. In fact, they observed one reporter grumbling because they had already written the story and now had to rewrite it.  I stand down from my concerns expressed above.]

I might have a lot more to say about this later, but there are more pressing events for a GA junkie upon us now and I will postpone any further thoughts on this, possibly indefinitely. If you want more coverage you can get it from all the usual suspects including…

Enough for now — This will have reverberations for a while to come in many forms and on many levels. We will see where this leads.  Stay tuned…

Threading The Needle — SPJC Approves Standards Statement

2 Replies


No sooner do I get done reflecting on the tension between a presbytery having full authority to determine if candidates hold the necessary and essential tenets of the Reformed faith and the requirement that presbyteries don’t actually try to enumerate them in advance then we have a Synod Permanent Judicial Commission (SPJC) decision that confirms that a presbytery has appropriately threaded this needle.

This case goes back to last September when the Presbytery of Los Ranchos adopted a statement on “behavioral expectations” of officers. This statement reads

Affirming that ‘The gospel leads members to extend the fellowship of Christ to all persons.’ (G-1.0302) The Presbytery of Los Ranchos, meeting on September 15, 2011, affirms that the Bible, The Book of Confessions and the Book of Order (including G-2.0104b and G- 2.0105.1 & 2) set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation. Los Ranchos Presbytery believes the manner of life of ordained Ministers should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world, including living either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness and will so notify candidates for ordination/installation and/or membership in the presbytery. In obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture and guided by our confessions, this presbytery will prayerfully and pastorally examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office, including a commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions of ordination and installation.

A remedial complaint was filed with the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii PJC – Gerald J . Larson, Gary L. Collins, Rebecca B. Prichard , R. Winston Presnall, Margery Mcintosh, Michal Vaughn, Lucy Stafford-Lewis, July Richwine, Jerry Elliott, Sara McCurdy, Gregory Vacca, Gail Stearns, Steve Wirth, Suzanne Darweesh, Jane Parker , Darlene Elliott, Frances Bucklin, Deborah Mayhew, James McCurdy, Judith Anderson, and Susan Currie, Complainants, vs . Presbytery of Los Ranchos, Respondent (with thanks to the Layman for making the decision available on-line). The complainants had three Specifications of Error which the SPJC wrote “can be disposed of by the following specification: Whether a presbytery has the right to pass a resolution concerning the manner of life for its teaching elders as part of the proper exercise of the presbytery’s authority within the powers reserved to presbyteries . (F-3.0209)” And the decision says – “This specification is answered in the affirmative.”

In stating that the resolution is proper the key line in the decision section says

It does not restate the Constitution in that it explicitly affirms the various documents without offering an interpretation of those documents.

They go on to first note that prior GAPJC decisions are based upon a prior Book of Order, although it is worth mentioning that the Report of the Special Committee on Existing Authoritative Interpretations of the Book of Order is recommending that all the cited Interpretations be retained. The decision then discusses these standards in light of the Bush and Buescher GAPJC decisions. Relative to Bush v Pittsburgh (218-10) they note that the Los Ranchos statement is in compliance with that decision as the “Resolution does not seek to offer an interpretation, paraphrase or restatement of any constitutional provisions.” Regarding the Buescher v Olympia decision (218-09) the Los Ranchos resolution specifically says that each candidate will be individually examined and so it does not have essentials that are mandated in advance.

Then, in what strikes me as an interesting use of this section of the Book of Order, the decision cites F-3.0102 where it says “[E]very Christian church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members…” I have usually read this in the context of affirming denominational differences not standards for individual presbyteries or particular churches so its use here struck me as out of place. Just my reading of it and I’ve grasped at thinner straws myself.

The decision section concludes with this:

The Resolution does not obstruct any on-going interpretation or implementation of the constitution. It does not alter or interpret the standards for ordination and installation. The Resolution does not seek to define any tenet as an ‘essential’ doctrine of the P.C. (U.S.A.).

But the SPJC has more to say in the order, and while lifting the Stay of Enforcement the Presbytery was also, under order, admonished for the language that they chose:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Presbytery of Los Ranchos be admonished that while this PJC considers the resolution constitutional, the use of specific language known to be divisive and inflammatory flies in the face of the responsibility to seek the peace, unity, and purity of the church.

Now, the polity wonks probably picked up two items in the decision that seem a bit of an issue, one being the use of F-3.0102 that I just mentioned. Two commissioners dissented from the decision and highlighted these two items in their opinion. Their first point is this:

1. In using the statement, “living either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in singleness” the Presbytery is using a direct restating of the previous Book of Order requirement which was replaced by the General Assembly action and the presbyteries’ vote. Therefore, it has no constitutional standing and cannot be used to determine a candidate’s ordination eligibility. Such a policy preempts the vote of presbyters meeting in the future for the examination of candidates who have met the current constitutional requirements.

They later write:

This language is purposefully taken out of the standards for ordained service (G-2.0l04b) by the action of the General Assembly and vote of the presbyteries. This renders the statement of the Presbytery of Los Ranchos unconstitutional in form and intent.

Their second point is what they consider the misapplication of F-3.0102 by the majority. Expressing the same understanding of the section I mention above they write, in part:

In F-3.0102 the Book of Order continues to speak of the Christian church [in all its denominations] by saying, “Every Christian Church or union or association of particular churches”[referring to denominations, not presbyteries] is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members. [Again, referring Reformed Tradition churches, not presbyteries.]

In fact, the Presbyterian Church (USA) specifically stresses in diversity as it states in the Book of Order: (F-1.0403)

The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership…

Let me make two brief points in conclusion:

First, the Presbytery of Los Ranchos is trying to walk a very fine polity line here and in the opinion of the majority of the SPJC they have successfully done so.  However, the decision I expected from this case was much, much closer to the dissenting opinion. I have to think that the verbatim inclusion of now-removed language from the Book of Order is a problem in light of the Bush decision. If appealed to the GAPJC I would think this decision has a high likelihood of being overturned. However…

Before the GAPJC will be able to hear this case, if appealed, the 220th General Assembly will be meeting and who knows what polity landscape will come out of that.  One possibility is that an Overture from South Alabama Presbytery (Item 07-08) will be sent to the presbyteries for concurrence providing for presbytery-specific behavioral expectations to be included in the presbytery’s operational manuals. Or maybe officers-elect who are being examined will be explicitly prohibited from being asked to commit on how they would view the fitness of future officers-elect they might be examining. This request for an AI comes from similar overtures from Genesee Valley and Albany.

Finally, just a reminder and in full disclosure that I am, and have been, active in the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii and know a good number of the people on both sides of this issue. The opinions expressed here are my own and do not reflect any sort of official disagreement or agreement with the faithful members of the SPJC. These are purely personal conclusions and remarks.

So, like much in the PC(USA) at the moment the future developments in this case will be interesting to see and heavily influenced by the moving target that is PC(USA) polity at the moment. Stay tuned and we will see what happens.

PC(USA) GAPJC Decision — Parnell v. Presbytery of San Francisco

1 Reply


The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has heard the final installment in a series of cases concerning San Francisco Presbytery’s decision to ordain Lisa Larges as a teaching elder. This has been a long journey which has finally reached its conclusion — this decision lifts the stay of enforcement and clears the way for the Presbytery’s decision to ordain Lisa to be carried out. In the larger context with the passage of Amendment 10-A we have probably seen the last of this type of cases.

I am not going to go through the full, complicated history of this case and the other remedial cases revolving around this ordination process – you can read about it in the GAPJC decision and my previous summaries. Briefly, where we stand with this case is that in the previous hearing before the GAPJC the Commission agreed with the Synod PJC that for the most part the procedure followed by the Presbytery was correct but that in their decision the Synod PJC had not properly dealt with the issue of doctrine. It was remanded back to the Synod for further consideration and now following that consideration, and an SPJC decision that there was no problem, it was appealed back to the GAPJC.

Now, in the case of Eric Parnell, Bruce McIntosh, Cordelia Shieh, Margaret Gelini, Greg Roth, Marsha Roth, Randy Young, and the Session of Walnut Creek Presbyterian Church, Appellants (Complainants), v. Presbytery of San Francisco, Appellee (Respondent):  Remedial Case 220-10 the GAPJC in a unanimous decision did not sustain any of the eight specifications of error.  As I indicated above every one dealt with doctrine and all begin “The SPJC committed an error of constitutional interpretation when it…” These specifications of error are:

  • “…when it failed to act according to its constitutional responsibility to warn and bear witness against error in doctrine within its bounds.”
  • “…when it presumed that it was the presbytery’s prerogative to determine the essentials of Reformed faith and polity, when they are expressed in the Constitution.”
  • “…when it failed to properly reconcile the Historic Principles of Church Order by giving effect only to F-3.0101 (Freedom of Conscience) at the expense of all the others.”
  • “…when it applied the concept of mutual forbearance (F-3.0105) to permit the candidate’s conscientious objection to a scriptural and confessional standard to infringe upon the rights and views of others (G-2.0105).”
  • “…when it failed to apply and enforce the interpretation of Scripture found in the Confessions (G-2.0105) with regard to sexual conduct.”
  • “…when it failed to discipline and rebuke the Presbytery for its failure to admonish and instruct the candidate in correct doctrine (G-3.0301c).”
  • “…when it permitted the Presbytery to accept a candidate for ordination who could not, by her rejection of sound doctrine, provide an affirmative answer to each of the constitutional questions for ordination (W-4.4003, 4005b, 4006b).”
  • “…when it permitted mere authoritative interpretations – in this case, the PUP and Knox AI – to override constitutional provisions, including those found in the Book of Confessions.”

As polity wonks know, every one of these has been an important polity question in the Presbyterian understanding of church government. In this present case some of these are rendered moot by the change in the Book of Order removing the specific restrictive language. But others are more general, such as how free a presbytery is to decide essentials of Reformed Faith and polity or the interplay of mutual forbearance, conscientious objection and confessional standards.  I’ll make a couple of observations in a minute, but first some quotes from the decision itself.

In the opening paragraph of the decision section the GAPJC writes:

[The] alleged errors can be subsumed under two categories: (1) doctrinal error by errant interpretation of Scripture and Confessions, and (2) the authority of the Presbytery in the examination of the Candidate for ordination. The Commission agrees with the SPJC Decision that the Presbytery properly exercised its prerogative in determining that the Candidate did not depart from the essentials of Reformed faith and polity.

They note the “diversity of opinions” in the PC(USA) and that historically “presbyteries have had full authority to determine whether a candidate for ordination adheres to the necessary and essential tenets of the Reformed faith.” The decision section concludes by talking about the Book of Confessions:

The Book of Confessions reflects that the Church listens to a multitude of voices in shaping its beliefs. The Book of Confessions is hardly univocal, containing as it does eleven different creeds, catechisms, and confessions of faith written over millennia of Christian witness. … Therefore, the confessional tradition is, itself, an instrument of reform. The Book of Confessions, much like Scripture itself, requires discernment and interpretation when its standards are to be applied in the life and mission of the church.

The decision of the SPJC is therefore affirmed and the stay of enforcement vacated.

This decision comes with two concurring opinions from two different viewpoints.  The first, signed by four commissioners, is an interesting historical commentary. It begins by noting that the original examination of the candidate involved declaring a scruple which they “believe to have then been unconstitutional.” With the change in the constitutional language this is no longer relevant.

But they go on to note, using language from the SPJC decision, the “vast diversity of interpretation of scripture and the confessions regarding human sexuality” across members of the denomination. They then write:

While we concur with this assessment of where the PC(USA) is as a denomination, we lament that it is in this place – where differences over matters of human sexuality have become so diverse and divisive, where slim majority votes create huge shifts in the communal life of the denomination, and where every decision the church makes in this area is a sweet victory for one side, and a bitter defeat for the other, ultimately causing entire congregations to determine that they can no longer remain in fellowship with the denomination. As Joe Small described in a recent article in First Things, our denomination has relied on polity instead of scriptural and theological discernment to decide particular manifestations of the dilemma in which we find ourselves.

In many respects the denomination has been transformed by a culture of sexual fixation rather than being transformative of that culture. What difference does it make to be “Christian” when it comes to our lifestyles? Have we spoken truth to power on issues such as promiscuity, premarital, extramarital and postmarital sex and the “soft” pornography that is rampant in our television shows and advertisements? Have we been willing to teach our children and each other on these matters? Or have we succumbed to the tyranny of cultural peer pressure? How can we discipline officers for sexual misconduct when we are unwilling to discipline ourselves generally? Have we been blinded by the “trees” of the homosexual issue, while overlooking the “forest” of the larger issues of sexual gluttony generally?

They continue with an interesting comparison of the situation today with the circumstances in the 1920’s that gave rise to the Swearingen Commission. They quote from the Commission’s first report that discussed the lack of interest in changing the Constitution but rather that “They are agreed that the remedies for our troubles are within the Constitution itself.” The opinion then goes on to say:

The same assessment could not be given today, and it is precisely our arguments over the constitution – including acts of outright defiance of constitutional provisions by those on both “sides” in our various debates – that we believe threaten our continued existence and future vitality as a faith tradition. There was a time when our covenantal commitment to each other was strong, and when “mutual forbearance” meant a willingness to abide by our constitution even as we worked to change it. Because of our increasing differences regarding what the constitution ought to say, those days are gone – and we are therefore in the position described by the Swearingen Commission in which our difficulties are “multiplied greatly.”

There is a second concurring opinion by two commissioners that makes an argument about the place of interpretation. They begin by noting that “the matter of interpretation is central because in large part it is inevitable within scriptural and confessional authority.” They go on to write:

The necessary act of interpretation has been at the heart of the Reformed tradition from its inception. One may, in fact, claim that the Reformation in itself was an event of radical reinterpretation, i.e., a corrected interpretation of the Bible in a recovery of the priority of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the means of grace.

They continue:

In this case, the parties agree on the necessity of continuing interpretation in understanding the meaning of Scripture and Confession through the application of modern textual analysis. The record exhibits testimony and general agreement in a number of interpretive conflicts in the church’s more recent history dealing with issues such as the role of women in the church, or in the matter of divorce and remarriage. The use of textual-critical methods, especially in the last century, has altered the range of interpretation to such an extent that scriptural and confessional texts in the arena of social and sexual relations areas have become open to alternate understandings.

Only in the matter of homosexuality do the Appellants claim an exception, i.e., pressing a univocal meaning and interpretation across vastly different historical periods and socio-cultural contexts. Although in other areas of contention there is an acceptance of the conditioning nature of radically altered historical-cultural situations, including differing social and scientific assessments, that may lead to the legitimacy of variant interpretation, in the argument of this Appeal homosexuality is an exception. It alone is held to be exempt from such interpretive analysis. The Appellants do not offer a convincing rationale in support of this exception. There is extended reference to a simple preponderance of pre-modern and early modern testimonies, but the argument remains rooted in an assumption of univocal constancy, with little reference to contemporary critical analysis or contextual differentiation. Absent such substantiation, the Appellants present no basis for rejecting the truth claim in variant interpretations.

The opinion concludes with how the Swearingen Commission described an essential tenet in their second report:

That which is “essential and necessary” is that which must be present in the doctrinal system of the church in order to uphold its central witness and maintain its distinctive character. Absent such doctrine, the system collapses. The test then becomes whether a particular doctrine or practice is necessary for the integrity of the system of doctrine as a whole.

They conclude that the doctrinal issue in this matter does not rise to the level of “essential and necessary.”

Now, while each of these is an interesting commentary and provides insights into the historical context, they are only concurring opinions and are not authoritative. In addition, they are essentially comments on the larger situation in the PC(USA) and how they see that it got into the current circumstances. It is left as an exercise for the reader as to the strengths of each of their arguments.

So, in that vain here are a couple of observations from me that I hope address the implications of this decision…

One of the things that I am on the lookout for when reading PJC or SJC decisions is to what extent they may be setting precedent. Because Amendment 10-A has gone into effect Specification of Error 8 is moot and was not individually addressed so this decision does not help enlighten us on the extent to which a General Assembly may use an Authoritative Interpretation to, shall we say, smooth constitutional language.  The first concurring opinion gave us their belief on the matter. I am concerned that the 220th General Assembly could issue AI’s that will be bouncing back and forth between the GA and the GAPJC much as the PUP and Knox AI did.

One thing this opinion does reinforce is that “presbyteries have had full authority to determine whether a candidate for ordination adheres to the necessary and essential tenets of the Reformed faith.” In doing so the GAPJC again declines to give specific guidance on what those are and leaves it up to the presbyteries. Is the logical extension of this that presbyteries, in discerning the necessary and essential tenets, are empowered to formally establish what necessary and essential tenets are? (exempli gratia) We know from the 2008 Buescher v. Olympia decision:

Attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary, and are themselves an obstruction to constitutional governance in violation of G-6.0108a.

Candidates must be evaluated individually but if the presbytery has “full authority,” to what extent can the necessary and essential tenets be determined as a matter of presbytery policy?

But while this decision speaks of the full authority of a presbytery and listening to a “multitude of voices,” the polity wonks are well aware of the tension and limits expressed in the Maxwell v. Pittsburgh decision where the GAPJC said that “presbytery’s power is not absolute. It must be exercised in conformity with the Constitution.” They went on to say

It is evident from our Church’s confessional standards that the Church believes the Spirit of God has led us into new understandings of this equality before God, Thus the Confession of 1967 proclaims, “Congregations, individuals, or groups of Christians who exclude, dominate, or patronize their fellowmen, however subtly, resist the Spirit of God and bring contempt on the faith which they profess.” (9.44.)

So a tension is present and over time the confessions may be understood to be more univocal on particular points.

And just a note about how these decisions focus on the church Constitution in general and the confessions in particular.  Yes, it is the charge of the GAPJC to interpret the Constitution, but while the specifications of error made reference to scripture, only passing reference to this is made in this decision to the authority of scripture. The focus instead is on how it is filtered and viewed through the confessions.  Compare this to the charges against Charles A. Briggs in 1893, admittedly a bit apples and oranges since this is remedial and that was disciplinary, which are very specific in regards to scripture references and doctrinal errors. As the Maxwell decision says, the authority of a presbytery is judged in relation to the Constitution, not in direct relation to scripture.

Another point that jumped out at me was the decision’s discussion of the nature of The Book of Confessions.  I don’t think it surprised anyone who has looked at the history of American Presbyterianism to read the line in the decision that says “The Book of Confessions reflects that the Church listens to a multitude of voices in shaping its beliefs. The Book of Confessions is hardly univocal, containing as it does eleven different creeds, catechisms, and confessions of faith written over millennia of Christian witness.” Even with only the Westminster Standards American Presbyterians have had trouble agreeing on what they mean — how much more when you have eight other documents thrown in? In light of the fact that ECO has expressed their desire to be specific about necessary and essential tenets I, and I suspect a number of others, were surprised to see that they propose adopting all eleven of the documents as their subsidiary standards, at least as an opening position.  Recognizing that this variety of statements is not univocal on many doctrinal issues, at the West Coast Fellowship of Presbyterians gathering in March it was interesting to hear TE Jim Singleton, in response to a question about this, commented that there will probably be doctrinal issues to be worked out “once we are all in the boat together” as the new ECO body.

OK, I have rambled on enough here so let me get to the bottom line.  As I read this decision I don’t see that it breaks any new ground but is a confirmation of the current status in the PC(USA). It is significant in two respects: 1) From my tracking all pre-10-A judicial cases have now been concluded. 2) The reinforcing of the status quo comes at a pivotal time with the establishment of ECO and a number of contentious issues coming to the General Assembly in two months. Another milepost on the journey — let us see what happens next.  Stay tuned…

Presbyterian News Headlines For The Week Ending April 21, 2012 — Federal Vision, Ghana Elections and Economics

Leave a reply

[ Greetings – It has been pointed out that my subject line gives you little to go on so I have added a few key words, or keywords, to highlight the subjects I found in this week’s headlines. ]

PCA Missouri Presbytery overwhelmingly finds Teaching Elder Jeff Meyers not guilty of charges against his views on theology

The Aquila Report, 16 April 2012
In a trial before the whole Presbytery, not a judicial commission, TE Meyers was found not guilty of holding views regarding covenant, or federal vision, theology that are outside the bounds of the Westminster Standards. The source for this article was a post by Wes White on his blog Johannes Weslianus. [ed. note: If you are not familiar with both of these they are good sources of info on the PCA as well as the other non-mainstream Presbyterian branches.]

With the fall elections approaching in Ghana there have been messages from the Presbyterian Church in Ghana including a call from the Moderator of the General Assembly to move up the election date to allow more time if a run-off is needed and for transition.

Presby Moderator Wants Election Date Changed

Daily Guide, 17 April 2012

And there have also been calls to:

Focus debate on issues not personalities – Politicians told

Vibe Ghana, 19 April 2012

Similar calls were made at the opening of the Anniversary celebration for a Akuapem Presbytery

Akuapem Presbytery Launches 90th Anniversary

Vibe Ghana, 20 April 2012

Charles Munn: Bank on the Kirk to help

Scotsman, 17 April 2012

Church of Scotland outlines vision for a moral economy

Christian Today, 18 April 2012
One of the reports coming to this year’s Church of Scotland General Assembly, the report of the Special Commission on the Purposes of Economic Activity titled ‘A Right Relationship with Money‘, made headlines in the media this week. As the second article summarizes it, the report makes the case that “good economic practice is embedded in social relationships.” Coverage was prompted by a Church of Scotland press release.

Those are some of the things in the news last week. Coming up this week the news includes the big happenings in Colorado Springs.

PC(USA) GAPJC Decision — Hwang v. Synod Of Southern California And Hawaii

2 Replies


Last fall there was an interesting case decided by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission that seems to have gotten relatively little notice. One of the interesting features is listed right up front in the decision in the first few words of the Arrival Statement –

This is a remedial case of original jurisdiction…

For those not up to speed on their PJC lingo this is one of those rare instances when the GAPJC is the trial court for a remedial complaint. (And thanks to our Synod EP/Stated Clerk Doska Ross for some history on these cases and they are a roughly once per decade occurrence. It is also useful to note that two similar cases were recently denied by the GAPJC because the claimant did not have standing – 220-06 and 220-07 )

Before we dive into the background of the complaint and the details of the decision I need to give full disclosure and clarification — As many of you know I have been active in the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii (the Synod) for a number of years and as a recent officer of the Synod I have a strong connection to the Respondent in this case and know many of the individuals involved.  However, in my time working with the Synod, while I am familiar with the events that led up to the complaint, I have not been a member of the Administrative Commission that is at the heart of this case and I have not been involved with the day-to-day events the Commission has dealt with. Now, having said that let’s move onward…

At the center of this case is the Hanmi Korean language non-geographic Presbytery. The presbytery was first authorized for ten years by the 195th General Assembly (1983) and organized on January 28, 1984. The 204th General Assembly (1992) granted the request for a fifteen year extension with the instructions for the presbytery and the synod to
“prepare an intentional plan for the transfer of congregations, as they
are ready, to the proper geographic presbytery … .” As the fifteen years were winding down another request for reauthorization was made and the 218th General Assembly (2008) granted the request that Hanmi Presbytery be “continued without term limit.” This was in contrast to the 219th General Assembly (2010) that declined to create a new non-geographic Korean language presbytery elsewhere in the country.

Back in February 1999 the Synod created an Administrative Commission (AC) to take jurisdiction of Hanmi Presbytery and help it work through various problems. The AC is still in place today – that would be 12 of the 28 years the presbytery has been active – and through its history the Synod has modified the AC’s powers and in general has over time reduced its authority with responsibility being transferred back to the Presbytery. In addition, at this time Hanmi has four administrative commissions of its own working with different churches. At a called Synod Assembly meeting on 18 December 2010 the Synod granted the AC some additional authority which became the basis on which this remedial complaint was filed.

The case is Remedial Case 220-05: Steve S. Hwang, Complainant v. Synod of Southern California and Hawaii, Respondent. The GAPJC heard the case almost one year later in October 2011. (The case was tried under the Book of Order in effect at the time of the alleged irregularities but some portions of the decision drift into using current Book of Order citations.)

At the December 2010 meeting the Synod added to the jurisdiction of the AC by:

(i) adding the responsibilities of the Presbytery’s Committee on Ministry (COM) outlined in G-11.0502 a, b, c, and j of the Book of Order, (ii) adding jurisdiction over the administrative commissions previously created by Presbytery, specifically including the Administrative Commission for Torrance First Presbyterian Church (TAC), and (iii) prohibiting the Presbytery and its COM from taking any actions from those designated responsibilities without the prior consent of the SAC.

Through the pre-trial conferences the trial was limited to two specific issues:

(i) Whether on December 18, 2010, the Synod committed an irregularity under G-11.0502 when it added to the jurisdiction of the pre-existing Synod Hanmi Presbytery Administrative Commission by giving the Commission full jurisdiction over the responsibilities of the Presbytery’s Committee on Ministry as outlined in G-11.0502 a, b, c, and j, without giving the Commission complete jurisdiction over the Presbytery itself; and

(ii) Whether on December 18, 2010, the Synod committed an irregularity under G-9.0502 when it gave the pre-existing Synod Hanmi Presbytery Administrative Commission complete jurisdiction over administrative commissions previously constituted by Hanmi Presbytery, including specifically the Administrative Commission for Torrance First Presbyterian Church.

In their decision a majority of the GAPJC did not sustain these complaints and the reasoning was fairly brief and direct. Regarding the first alleged irregularity they write “while it may be questioned whether the Synod wisely allocated G-11.0502 responsibilities between the SAC and the Presbytery, this Commission declines to substitute its judgment for that of the Synod.” They then go on to cite the sections of the Book of Order that as “currently interpreted” permit a synod to take original jurisdiction.

Concerning the second irregularity they say:

As to the second alleged irregularity, it may be questioned whether the Synod should have included the TAC as one of the administrative commissions over which it was taking jurisdiction, since the record is unclear as to whether the TAC existed on December 18, 2010. However, the Synod’s action did not rise to the level of an irregularity since, if the TAC did then exist, the Synod would have had authority to assume jurisdiction over it under G-9.0503…; if it did not then exist, the assertion of authority would have been of no effect.

So there is the core of the decision, but there is a lot more here for us polity wonks to chew on. Let me begin with a bit more of the decision. The GAPJC does note that “the authority to assume original jurisdiction over a lower governing body is not a specifically delegated authority in the Book of Order, except in the case of a presbytery assuming original jurisdiction of a session.” But in rendering their decision they defer to a General Assembly Authoritative Interpretation from 2003 “which listed the assumption of original jurisdiction over a presbytery by a synod as one of the remedies available to the synod if a presbytery within its jurisdiction is not obeying decisions of the General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission.”

But they go on to point out the tension in the Presbyterian system with the presbytery as the basic unit of the system and say

This
Commission lifts up to the church for its consideration the question of whether the 2003
Authoritative Interpretation adequately embodies the principle of F-3.0209 (formerly G-9.0103)
that “the jurisdiction of each council is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, with
powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries.” While the provision of former G-9.0503a(4) (now G-3.0109b(5)) makes it clear that councils may appoint administrative
commissions to “inquire into and settle the difficulties” in bodies within their jurisdiction, this
Commission suggests that assuming original jurisdiction of a lower body is a matter of such a
serious nature that the authority to do so should be explicitly prescribed in the Book of Order.

But wait, there’s more… This decision also has a concurring opinion, a dissenting opinion and two opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Lot’s of stuff here for polity wonks to chew on.

Two commissioners signed the concurring opinion noting that they concur reluctantly because the issues on trial were so narrowly defined. They go on to say “this case demonstrates the difficulties that can arise when a synod administrative commission assumes original jurisdiction over a troubled presbytery.” For synods working with presbyteries, particularly language-specific ones, they argue that original jurisdiction is an “inadequate and confusing response” and note that with the AC in place the inalienable right of members to chose their leaders has been restricted for a dozen years. They conclude

If a presbytery is so fragile or so conflicted that it cannot govern itself then it should be asked if
the presbytery is viable. If not, the presbytery should be dissolved and its congregations
transferred to other presbyteries. However, a presbytery, having been established, should first be
given a fair opportunity to succeed or fail by its own efforts. The current situation, where a
presbytery is deemed viable but denied self-government, is unworkable. The congregations and
ministers of Hanmi Presbytery deserve better.

The next opinion is concurring in part and dissenting in part and signed by two commissioners with a third agreeing with most of it. Their point is that the Torrance Administrative Commission was properly concluded before the Synod took the action and they conclude “Neither a declaration by the Synod nor a Decision of this Commission can call back into existence an AC which no longer exists.” But along with this they are critical of the AC and the Synod for not being transparent about the facts and possibly even being obstructive. As they write, “it was inappropriate and even misleading for the SAC’s recommendation to have given specific emphasis to the Torrance AC.”

The dissenting opinion was signed by two commissioners and three more signed on to all but the concluding paragraph.  This is a good read for polity wonks as the dissent talks about the nature of Presbyterian government and the relationship of governing bodies. They note that while there is the right of review and control of a higher governing body over a lower one, they argue that “such a reviewing authority does not provide authority for a pro-active taking over of the jurisdiction of a lower governing body.” Combined with the provision that “with powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries” (G-9.0103, now F-3.0208-.0209)” they write in conclusion:

Our constitution has no explicit provision whether a synod can appoint an Administrative Commission to assume the original jurisdiction over a Presbytery. Applying a provision for
Presbytery to Synod is over-reaching interpretation of the Constitution and may not be well
reflected the principle of Presbyterian governing (F-3.0208, F-3.0209). We believe the
empowering of the SAC by the Synod to intervene in the existing Presbytery’s power to govern
its congregations through its committee on ministry and administrative commissions is un-Presbyterian and an erroneous decision and, therefore, the complaints must be sustained.

The final concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion takes issue with the Synod granting to the AC only four of the ten responsibilities of the Committee on Ministry. They argue that to fragment a committee’s responsibilities is disruptive and even if legal with “its threat of disorder it rises to the level of irregularity.” The commissioners argue that the granting the AC the powers of the COM should be all or nothing:

The functions of a Committee on Ministry as outlined in G-11.0502, a-j, are not to be pastorally
or operationally fragmented because its processes and procedures are holistic by nature. The
segregation of selected functions or divided authorization between a committee and a
commission is unwieldy and unnecessary. It fractures the operations of work that is often
pastorally delicate and operationally intricate.

So there you have a run-down of the decision. Several great polity questions in there which the GAPJC had to deal with. Probably the one with the widest future applicability is whether a synod can take original jurisdiction of a troubled presbytery. While the dissenting opinion argued “no” the majority gave a “yes, but…” It is interesting though that while they said it would be helpful to have it explicitly stated in the constitution and they stated that they would not overturn the previous interpretation, to some degree they seem to have expanded that previous interpretation. The AI on 03-04 by the 215th General Assembly dealt specifically with the powers of enforcement when a GAPJC decision was not being complied with. In this case the rational is extended to a synod stepping in to work with a troubled presbytery. (And there have been enough judicial cases in all this to argue that it is in response to one although the decision does not specifically cite any.) (You can see if this link to the AI works. And the report of the Special Committee on Existing Authoritative Interpretation recommends retaining this AI.)

This decision, while reinforcing the status quo, should also cause us to think about the nature of a presbytery and the current expectations for it. Our presbyteries are much more institutional than they were about a century ago and when they don’t function as the institution they are expected to be the question is not what are the legal ways to help them out but what are the best ways to support them. The other side of the coin to this, of course, is asking the question the decision does as to whether presbyteries are being created that are not viable in our current institutional structure.

So the GAPJC decision enhances the strength of connectionalism and higher governing bodies’ powers of review and control. While it would be interesting to see if future cases are helpful in further defining these powers between the rarity of these cases to begin with and the prospect of the re-purposing of synods would seem to make this unlikely.  However, this decision could be relevant to some of the “reflective experimentation” that could come out of the Mid-Councils Commission recommendations if a higher council felt that a presbytery experiment was getting out of hand.  It will be interesting to see if this decision has future implications.  Stay tuned…

Presbyterian News Headlines For The Week Ending March 24, 2012

Leave a reply

[Editor’s note: I have decided to start a weekly rundown of news stories related to, or that have implications for, the various Presbyterian branches. My blogging time has been restricted lately and while I would love to comment at length on a few of these I probably will not get to them in a timely manner.  I do however reserve the right to do so if I get around to it.]

Maryland bill would help congregations in fight over control of church assets

from The Washington Post on March 18, 2012
This proposal in Maryland to repeal a 1976 state law regarding implied trust on property specifically relates to two Methodist Congregations that desire to separate from their denomination.  However, the broader implications for all hierarchical denominations are interesting.

Self acclaimed prophets cautioned against predicting winner in elections

from Ghana Broadcasting Corporation
Here is the core of the article

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church Synod Moderator for the West Volta
Presbytery, Reverend Joce Kofi Kodade, has called on Ghanaians to ignore
public pronouncements by self acclaimed prophets who predict winners
ahead of the conduct of this year’s general elections.

He said such proclamations may cause tension, adding that it is rather
necessary for religious leaders as unifiers to uphold and demonstrate
ethical virtues of neutrality and integrity during political campaigns.

National Council of Churches releases their 2012 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches

from National Council of Churches on March 20, 2012
In which we learn that overall giving to churches dropped $1.2 billion last year, that six of the 25 largest denominations that reported data saw an increase in membership (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, National Baptist Convention, Seventh-Day Adventists, Assemblies of God, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World and the Jehovah’s Witnesses), and the largest decline in membership was in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (down 5.90%). The PC(USA) reported a decline of 3.42%.

Minister calls for Presbyterians to include gays

from gaynz.com on March 21, 2012
In a funeral sermon preached for his gay colleague The Rev. David Clark, the Rev. Dr. Allan
Davidson ONZM called on the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand to rescind their 2004 General Assembly action prohibiting active homosexuals from holding ordained office.

Stated Clerk Nomination Committee selects Parsons for a second term

from PC(USA) on March 21, 2012
The Stated Clerk Nominating Committee of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has endorsed the Rev. Gradye Parsons for a second term as Stated Clerk of the General Assembly. There were no other nominations submitted to the committee.

PC(USA) Synod of the Trinity Permenant Judicial Commission rules that the new Form of Government still requires payment of per capita

SPJC Decison on March 23, 2012
The Synod PJC found that the language in the new Form of Government is not less restrictive regarding the payment of per capita and the change in language is not significant enough to render a previous Authoritative Interpretation as no longer in force.
[Ed. note: I will revisit this in more detail, hopefully later this week.]

PC(USA) GAPJC Decision In The Spahr 2012 Case: 1. The Decision

7 Replies


As you may have heard the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) published four decisions yesterday. Wait, let me rephrase that – You may have heard about a GAPJC decision that hit the news yesterday. (For the polity wonks I actually think one of the other decisions is more interesting so I will try to comment on that in the next couple of days.)

The case is Disciplinary Case 220-08: Jane Adams Spahr, Appellant (Accused), v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) through the Presbytery of the Redwoods, Appellee (Complainant). Of the 15 GAPJC commissioners who heard the case, six of them signed one or both dissenting opinions.

This disciplinary case results from an accusation that was filed after the Rev. Spahr conducted same-sex marriages during the window when these marriages were permissible under civil law in the state of California. Among other things, this case became a test of whether a PC(USA) minister (teaching elder) could preform a ceremony presented as a marriage when permitted by the state.

At the present time the precedent for the interpretation of the PC(USA) constitution on this matter is the previous decision regarding Rev. Spahr (the Spahr 2008 decision 218-12) which now-famously stated (pg. 4):

The ceremonies that are the subject of this case were not marriages as the term is defined by W-4.9001. These were ceremonies between women, not between a man and a woman. Both parties acknowledged the ceremonies in question were not marriages as defined by the Book of Order. It is not improper for ministers of the Word and Sacrament to perform same sex ceremonies. At least four times, the larger church has rejected overtures that would prohibit blessing the unions of same sex couples. By the definition in W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage. The SPJC found Spahr guilty of doing that which by definition cannot be done. One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister of the Word and Sacrament and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.

As that paragraph implies, the GAPJC overturned her earlier conviction on appeal because under the PC(USA) Constitution’s definition there is no such thing as a same-sex marriage.

Having now been charged and found guilty by the Presbytery PJC of new similar offenses in this regard the court had to decide on appeal whether her conviction on grounds of representing a same-sex ceremony as a marriage was correct.

In the decision nine specifications of error were regrouped into three different specifications of error, none of which was sustained. The first dealt with all the constitutional issues, the second that the various PJC’s have erred by “usurping the legislative power of the General Assembly,” and the third that there was a procedural error with the Synod PJC rephrasing the charges.

Regarding the constitutional issues the GAPJC decision says:

In Spahr 2008, Spahr was directed to refrain from implying, stating, or representing that a same-sex ceremony is a marriage. Within months of that order, Spahr performed marriage ceremonies for approximately sixteen same-sex couples. Although counsel for both parties confirmed that state law recognizes the legality of these marriages, the change in state law did not and could not change what is permissible for marriages to be authorized by the PC(USA).

and

The issue is not simply the same-sex ceremony. It is the misrepresentation that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) recognizes the ceremony and the resulting relationship to be a marriage in the eyes of the church. By the definition of W-4.9001, such a result cannot be. So the critical question is not whether the definitional language creates proscribed conduct, it is whether it is permissible to represent that one is doing something which one cannot constitutionally do.

and

This Commission agrees with the SPJC regarding Specification of Error No. 1 d and e (Appellant’s Specifications of Error Nos. 6, 7, and 8). The SPJC correctly found that “being faithful to Scripture and the Constitution on other matters does not provide a defense for the actions charged in this case,” and “the constitutional interpretations of Spahr (2008) and Southard by the PPJC are not inconsistent with the Book of Order when read as a whole.” Both the PPJC and SPJC found that Spahr’s conduct violated the Constitution.

The Decision portion where all this is laid out is relatively short, encompassing just over one page. Pretty short for nine specifications of error.

One commissioner, Barbara Bundick, wrote a concurring opinion which brings out a couple of interesting points. The first is that in some jurisdictions even if same-sex marriage is recognized by the state if it is not recognized by the clergy’s denomination that can invalidate the marriage. That is not an issue in this case since California does not have that provision but the point is made that those preforming marriages must be cautious about this in some jurisdictions.

Secondly, this concurrence takes issue with the GAPJC decision for not addressing liturgical forms.  It says:

While I affirm the majority opinion, I have serious concerns that the majority, in affirming the SPJC’s decision, is also affirming the SPJC’s criticism of the content of the ceremonies and the counseling Spahr conducted. In drawing a distinction between same-sex blessings, which are permissible, and same-sex marriages, which are not, the authoritative interpretations have gone beyond the definition of marriage to dictate the nature of the liturgy that can be used in same-sex blessings. […] In Spahr 2008, this Commission stated “the liturgy should be kept distinct for the two types of services.” This aspect of the precedent has created a difficult situation for those who minister to the GLBT community.

There is an inevitable and legitimate overlap between a same-sex blessing ceremony and a mixed-sex marriage ceremony. Both ceremonies involve a couple making promises to each other in the presence of God, their families and their community. As oft noted, “Form follows function.” Moreover, many, if not most of the trappings surrounding such ceremonies reflect popular culture rather than Biblical command. Given the overlap and the input from popular culture, how the two liturgies can be “kept distinct” is a mystery.

Requiring different liturgies has led to judicial micromanagement of the liturgy.

and concludes

The best solution is for the General Assembly to amend the definition of marriage to authorize teaching elders and commissioned ruling elders to preside at the marriages of same-sex couples in civil jurisdictions that recognize such marriages as legal. The definition now found in W-4.9001 was never designed for these circumstances. It was adopted in a world where same-sex marriages were inconceivable. By retaining that definition despite the increasing number of jurisdictions recognizing same-sex marriage, the church creates a form of second class citizenship for faithful Christians despite all the other places in the Book of Order where the full equality of persons regardless of sexual orientation is affirmed. I encourage the General Assembly to so act.

The second concurrence was signed by three commissioners and begins by looking at the Appellant’s arguments and suggesting “The Appellant asks this Commission to substitute her own interpretation for that made by this Commission in Spahr 2008.” It continues to discuss the fact that pastoral care and marriage are two different things in the Book of Order and they are to be considered separately. They say “Descriptions of pastoral care found in the Directory of Worship do not reach to the question of marriage.” It concludes by pointing out:

The appropriate way to redefine marriage and permissible practice within the PC(USA) is not through individual reinterpretation of the advice of the larger church, but by means of an amendment to the Constitution approved by the
General Assembly and ratified by the presbyteries of the church.

The first of the two dissents, signed by six commissioners, begins by saying that the majority decision is at odds with the PC(USA) constitution talking about the “equality and rights of all people.” It then talks about how we got here:

Both parties agree that before the 2008 Spahr decision there was no limitation on the conduct of teaching elders (clergy) regarding how they approached the matter of gay marriage, although most of the denomination hesitated to perform same gender marriages.

It goes on to say:

The larger church has repeatedly declined to amend W-4.9001 with regard to same-sex ceremonies. The church needs a sharper degree of clarification and guidance that precisely defines how it understands marriage, especially in light of the high financial and personal burden involved. Given the contention regarding the nature and practice of Christian marriage in our time, it would be important and valuable for the Church, through its General Assembly, to state its definition in clearer and more precise legislation.

and concludes with

Since the Directory for Worship is part of our constitution and the majority has found that it may give rise to disciplinary cases, then it should be immediately amended to clearly state that we fully welcome the LGBT community into their rightful place in our church, including allowing them to marry.

Overall, this is the one section that argues most strongly that the strict definition of marriage in W-4.9001 is wrong on equality and justice grounds. Some may see this as the natural linkage of the church’s stand for equality and justice while others will see it as advocacy beyond the the prevue of a PJC decision and possibly even judicial activism.

In reading this I do have trouble with their argument in the second section I quoted.  I think many in the church would argue that when the larger church has “repeatedly declined to amend W-4.9001 with regard to same-sex ceremonies” that does indeed provide a sharp “degree of clarification and guidance.” As for the GA stating its definition in clearer and more precise language, I refer you to the report to the 219th GA of the Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Unions and Christian Marriage where it says (p. 13):

What is the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community? The members of the PC(USA) cannot agree.

However, having said that, I will agree that while we will have trouble agreeing on a definition of marriage in an ecclesiastical sense, the PC(USA) Constitutional definition would be enhanced by a recognition that in a civil sense that reality is no longer always “one man and one woman.”

Five of those six commissioners on the first dissent continue on in the second dissent concerning the interpretation of the Directory for Worship. They begin:

The majority judges this case primarily in relation to the decisions in Spahr (2008) and Southard (2011) in a conviction that, behind its judicial interpretation, there is in the Constitution an explicit basis against officiating in a same-sex marriage. In fact, this conviction rests upon an assumption rather than explicit constitutional rule. It is grounded principally upon one section, even one sentence, in the Directory of Worship, that is claimed to have clear and obvious legal status. The Commission assumes here and in earlier cases that W-4.9001 presents a legal basis for denying the permissibility and validity of same-sex marriage because it presents a “definition” of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. This assumption is flawed. This provision in the Directory of Worship cannot serve effectively as a judicial criterion.

They then argue that W-4.9001 reflects a different point in time when “The exclusive conventional norm was heterosexual marriage, when same-sex marriage, either civil or ecclesiastical, was unimaginable.”  They go on to argue that this section is introductory and narrative and that “To claim that this paragraph is primarily and intentionally legal in nature forces an artificial warp upon its evident narrative purpose.” Finally, they point out that grammatically the primary emphasis of the one sentence is the covenant nature of marriage and not the “one man and one woman.” The dissent concludes:

In this case and the other recent decisions, my principal concern is that this Commission has forged a standard upon an extremely fragile provision, employing a strained interpretation that does not provide the necessary legal foundation for resolution of our dilemma or foster pastoral guidance in the life of the church. By relying so heavily on W-4.9001, the Commission has ruled upon convention rather than law.

I enjoyed reading this dissent and even if you don’t agree with their conclusion if you want to read a well presented argument against the prescriptive nature of this section of the Directory for Worship have a look at it.

So, at this point the Rev. Spahr has reached her final appeal and will be subject to Rebuke by the Presbytery of the Redwoods. However, according to the L.A. Times article she has said that she will continue preforming same-sex marriages. (Although, at the moment they are not permitted in California.)

But getting back to polity questions, what does all this mean? Considering the number of statements that have been made and the wide variety of overtures that are headed to the 220th General Assembly this decision could have significant implications. And that my fellow polity wonks I will take up in Part 2.

Two PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions On Ordination Standards — A Plate Of Polity, Doctrine On The Side…

4 Replies

Today the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released their decisions in two closely watched remedial cases.  One reason for the high-profile nature of the cases is the fact that they began their lives with G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” language, in the Book of Order, but as of last month that language has been removed and modified in the new G-2.0104b. Does the change in language make the cases moot?  The GAPJC said yes… and no.

If you want the summary and outcomes, here you go:

The case of Session of Caledonia Presbyterian Church and others v. Presbytery of John Knox deals with the examination for ordination of Mr. Scott Anderson.  The key quote in this decision is:

The Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot is granted, and the Stay of Enforcement is lifted. The only alleged irregularities set out in Appellants’ Notice of Appeal cite G-6.0106b and Authoritative Interpretations of that section as the basis of their Appeal. The language of that section was removed from the Book of Order prior to the GAPJC hearing of the Appeal. In granting this motion, this Commission declines to rule upon the application of a provision of the Book of Order that no longer exists. Nothing in this Decision should be construed to interpret the ordination standards under the new Form of Government, as that issue is not before the Commission.

The second case is that of Parnell and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco and results from the examination to ordain Ms. Lisa Larges.  This case was not dismissed but eight of the specifications of error were not sustained for the same reason the Anderson case was dismissed. Where this was different is that doctrine was cited as an irregularity.  The decision says:

The record does not reflect that the SPJC ruled on the Appellants’ contention that Scripture and the Confessions prohibit certain sexual behavior. While the Appellants’ complaint was based primarily on G-6.0106b, the Appellants clearly and consistently presented arguments at trial on the basis of scriptural and confessional standards without objection by the Presbytery. Since the doctrinal issue is central to the Appellants’ case, it was error for the SPJC not to expressly rule upon the issue.

The case is remanded back to the Synod of the Pacific PJC and the SPJC is “encouraged to direct the Presbytery to reexamine the candidate under G-2.0104b.”

OK, that’s the bottom line.  Now polity wonks, lets do some more reading.

Regarding the Caledonia v. John Knox decision what is striking to me is that while the decision itself is just the dismissal and relatively straight-forward, I did after all give you the complete Decision in the quote above, this is a longer decision.  Of the 15 commissioners on the GAPJC (there is one vacant position) eight signed on to one of the three concurring comments and five signed at least one of the dissenting comments. (One commissioner signed both dissenting comments.) So a lot of the commissioners wanted to say something and these additional comments essentially triple the length of the decision.

The concurring comments included commentary on how the General Assembly had issued a flawed Authoritative Interpretation, how the Commission could not consider broader issues than G-6.0106b because they were not raised in the appeal, how the Presbytery should have started over with Anderson under the new Book of Order language as suggested, and how some commissioners would have preferred to have affirmed the SPJC decision rather than dismiss the case.

The dissenting comments focus on how the SPJC decision is flawed because it did not address the doctrinal arguments (like the SPJC decision in the Larges case) and the flawed nature of the GA AI.

The catch of course is that while these statements were made in the decision, since the case was dismissed they do not raise to the standard of Interpretation.  However, the tension over the AI from the General Assembly that allowed scrupling of practice as well as belief has been substantial and that issue is reflected in the concurrence by Copeland, Kim, Cramer and Cornman says:

While we find the “Knox AI” to be flawed, we believe that the Presbytery acted in good faith when it based its decisions on its interpretation of that Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 adopted by the 218th General Assembly (2008). G-13.0103r of the Form of Government in force at the time of the contested ordination examination states, “The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding.” In this case this would be the Knox AI. The flaw of the Knox AI, however, is that it fails to recognize that any AI, regardless of who issues it, cannot modify a specific requirement of the Book of Order. An AI can interpret the Constitution but the only way to modify such an explicit requirement (G-6.0106b) is through the amendment process.

The decision in Parnell v. John Knox is more extensive, but eight of the eleven specifications of error are dismissed because “the constitutional provisions under which the Candidate was examined are no longer part of the Constitution.”  A ninth was dismissed because they found that the record did not sustain the claim that the presbytery itself departed from the Essential Tenants of the Reformed Faith by approving the candidate. There were two specifications of error regarding the SPJC not dealing with the doctrinal issues raised and only dealing with process. These are the errors that were sustained.  I have quoted the relevant portion of the decision above where the GAPJC points out that “the Appellants clearly and consistently presented arguments at trial on the basis of scriptural and confessional standards without objection by the Presbytery.”  The GAPJC decision is careful to also note that “In sustaining this specification of error, this Commission is not ruling on whether doctrinal error or abuse of discretion occurred, but only that it is not evident from the language of the decision whether or not the SPJC ruled upon this matter.”

There is a concurring opinion by one commissioner who expresses caution that review of ordaining bodies decisions should be done carefully:

The protocol for review by an appellate body needs, therefore, to be very prudently limited to those cases in which either an ordaining body or a Permanent Judicial Commission has very clearly erred or the process is so defective as to have deprived one of the parties of due process, such that there are extraordinary reasons for reversal. The duty of a reviewing body is to be discharged with caution and great deference.

He says that the only reason he can concur is because the recommendation is to have the presbytery do the examination again under the new standard.

There is also a dissent by three commissioners who feel there are no grounds to have the doctrine arguments reviewed by the SPJC: “For an appellate body to be empowered to micromanage the ordination process without there being extraordinary reasons would be ill-advised.”  They conclude their comments with the economic argument:

Both parties urged this Commission not to remand this case for further hearings as they recognized that to do so would not only cause significant and unnecessary expense to the church, but would also result in no difference in outcome. This Commission is charged with securing th
e “economical determination of proceedings.” We believe that sending the case back to the SPJC does not accomplish that charge.

A couple of things jump out to me in these decisions:

1) Previous GAPJC decisions regarding ordination standards seem to have been crafted so that members of the GAPJC were unanimous, or nearly so, in the decision. The decisions give the appearance that this was done by focusing on the process.  The variety of voices heard in these decisions, particularly the Caledonia v. John Knox, strikes me as a shift in tone and there is no longer an emphasis on high-consensus decisions.  It may be the change in circumstances with the passage of 10-A.  It might have to do with the fact that these cases have reached a level of maturity that all the procedural issues have been beaten out of them and they are now down to the core doctrinal issues.  Or it may be that the church as a whole has reached a point where we need to start taking these issues seriously.  I don’t know if others agree but looking over these decisions I sense a change in tone from previous ones.

2) Related to that, these decisions appear to me to be sending a message that the GAPJC  is ready to start dealing with those issues, maybe even wanting to based on some of the writing.  The feeling is not unanimous, as a couple of the minority comments argue for leaving those issues to the presbyteries.  But one concurring decision in the Caledonia v. John Knox case says:

Additionally, the Appellants, while arguing on appeal a scriptural basis for overturning the Presbytery’s action, failed to include such arguments in either their original complaint or the specification of errors. These omissions meant that this Commission was unable to address issues broader than the application of G-6.0106b in its Decision.

They almost seem to be lamenting the fact that they wanted to deal with this but could not work on that problem because of the structure of the appeal.

Now, there is an opinion that differs from mine regarding this, but as I read these decisions it seems to me that the GAPJC is saying it might be time to examine the doctrine at the highest level.  The caveat they place is that it needs to be done decently and in order by properly arguing it at the court of first impressions and by properly appealing it in the brief.

So the bottom line – In Mr. Anderson’s case the process has concluded.  The stay of enforcement is lifted and he is cleared to be ordained.  As for Ms. Larges, the process continues.  There will be another trial before the SPJC on the doctrinal issues, there will probably be another examination for ordination before the presbytery based on the new Book of Order language, and I would suspect another appeal to the GAPJC following the new SPJC hearing.  While this extends a very long journey even further, the apparent benefit to many of us in this upcoming cycle will the the opportunity to actually have the GAPJC rule on the doctrine and not just the process.  Stay tuned…

[Update: Note the comment below by the Rev Mary Holder Naegeli who was in the midst of this case. 1) The remand does not necessarily mean a reopening of the trial, 2) doctrine was discussed by the PJC in the proceedings but not in the decision, 3) The GAPJC consensus seemed to be that they would not accept the case for review another time.  Thanks Mary.]

New Ordination Standards Language In The PC(USA) And The Discussion Of Standards

2 Replies

As the polity wonks in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are well aware we have to be studying up on the changes to the Book of Order that go into effect this weekend.  The biggest change is the addition of a new section, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity, and the rewrite of the Form of Government, but there are a few other amendments that changed language elsewhere in the constitution. While the paper copy is still at the printer and the electronic copies are in preparation, especially the annotated version, we do have the vast majority of the new Form of Government from the amendment booklet.

However, there are about 20 locations where other specific amendments have made changes to the Book of Order, and seven of these are in the FOG.

Of these changes the only one to have any substantial opposition in the presbyteries is the new wording of G-2.0104b, the standards for ordination. This is the new number and wording for what was previously numbered G-6.0106b and we will have to learn to have the new number roll off our tongue as the old one did.

Some may say that this debate is over and we can move on to other things so there is no need to get used to the numbering of that section.  I think the evidence is that in the short- to intermediate-term there will still be substantial discussion about what it actually means so I at least am getting used to it.

For some this weekend is an occasion for celebration and More Light Presbyterians have released a suggested opening liturgy for this coming Lord’s Day that begins

Common Beginning of Worship and of Church Life
July 10, 2011

Procession
(run free with banners, scarves, ribbons, streamers, etc)

I have not seen a liturgy for those who favored the previous ordination standards language, but I suspect that if there is one it is a bit less exuberant.

The reason that I don’t think the Book of Order citation number will soon disappear from our vocabulary is that there is now a substantial amount of discussion about how to live into the new verbiage.

For example, More Light Presbyterians have issued a guide with their recommendations about moving forward with the new language titled Ordination Guide: So That G-2.0104 Shall Be a
Blessing for our Church and World. On the introductory web page they say:

Fair, accurate interpretation and implementation of 10-A, now known
as G-2.0104 is our top priority. We have created Ordination Guides from
an affirming perspective and we have sent them to staff in all 173
presbyteries…

We need to get this
affirming Guide in the hands, hearts, minds and actions of every
Presbyterian congregation, every Committee on Preparation for Ministry
and every Committee on Ministry. We believe that G-2.0104 can be a
blessing for our Church and world. For 10-A to make the difference it
can make, we need to make sure that it is understood, honored and
followed by every church and presbytery. We know this is a tall order:
11,000 churches in 173 presbyteries. All of us doing our part can make
this happen. Together we are building a Church that reflects God’s
heart.

The guide is not very extensive and addresses all the primary audiences briefly. It frequently says something similar to this passage that is part of the advice to seminaries:

For polity professors and administrators handling placement, help your seminarians study the exact wording of G-2.0104. Help them become as familiar as possible with the theological contours of their own presbyteries, other potential presbyteries where they might come under care and the presbyteries where they might seek a call. Prepare them to be ready to ground their responses to questions from Committees on Preparation or [sic] Ministry and from Pastor Nominating Committees in Scripture, the confessions and the constitutional questions.

Depending on your perspective, this advice could be seen a either practical advice about discerning and living into their call or as “teaching the test” and making sure the candidate knows the right thing to say when the time comes to improve their chances in a presbytery with some differences of opinion.

From the opposite perspective there is an equally interesting document now posted.  With the change in the ordination standards language the PC(USA) has removed their “mandatory church wide behavioral ordination standard.” Now that the mandatory standard has been removed, what will become of judicial cases that are in the pipeline?

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission is scheduled to hear two of those cases three weeks from today on July 29th. In an effort to argue that their case is still relevant even with the new language, Parnell and others have submitted a Supplemental Brief in their case against the Presbytery of San Francisco. (And thanks to the Presbyterian Coalition for making it available on their web site.) The brief begins with this:

The question is posed whether this case is still at issue, given the recent ratification of Amendment 10-A, and if so, whether any of the specifications of error are mooted by that revision to Book of Order section G-6.0106b. The basis of Appellants’ case from the beginning has been the clear and univocal mandate of Scripture. Scripture has not changed, so the case is not moot.

The suggestion of mootness implies that when 10-A deleted fidelity/chastity from the text of G-6.0106, something new was achieved, either a new standard or a new procedure. Neither is the case. Changing the sexual ethic standard requires changing Scripture, while the procedures described in 10-A merely restate current ordination process (G-14.0452 and G-14.0480). Since 10-A presents nothing new, the case is not moot.

I applaud the writers of this brief for taking on the issue as it now stands and not under the previous language.  In response to a motion by the Presbytery they argue:

The Presbytery has suggested that this case should be decided with reference solely to the former language of G-6.0106b and without regard to the subsequently certified Amendment 10-A, that is, by applying only the text that appeared at the time. If a new rule had superseded an old one because it contradicts the former, this suggestion would be debatable. But this is not the situation before us. Simply, 10-A is neither a new rule nor a new procedure. Thus, nothing is gained by this Commission excluding 10-A from its consideration. In any case, there is no authority that mandates that a matter must be decided using only the rule that existed at the time.

With appreciation for their efforts and respect for their argument, it is my opinion that this effort will not be successful.  While the GAPJC regularly decides cases regarding procedures and interpretation of the Book of Order, with the removal of the mandatory standard I am not seeing a lot that the GAPJC would feel obliged to weigh in on.  GAPJC decisions seldom address doctrinal questions that have been interpreted on the presbytery level generally showing deference to the presbytery’s decision. They have been clear in the past that beyond the mandatory standard the presbytery is the body to decide fitness for ordination as a teaching elder.  It will be interesting to see how the GAPJC addresses the argument that scripture and the confessions still provide a mandatory standard and that nothing has changed.

Speaking of standards, I want to finish up with some thoughts about the definition and application of standards for ordination in the PC(USA) today.

First, the Bush v. Pittsburgh decision (218-10) set the bar for what presbyteries can do, or more generally can not do, in the way of standards and ordination examinations.  Some of the more relevant sections:

3. Statements of “Essentials of Reformed Faith and Polity”: Attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary; and are themselves an obstruction to constitutional governance in violation of G-6.0108a. [Headnotes, p. 1]

The constitutional process for amending ordination standards (or any other provision of the Constitution) is defined in Chapter 18 of the Form of Government. While the General Assembly and the GAPJC may interpret these standards, the Authoritative Interpretation did not (and constitutionally could not) change any ordination standard, including the requirements set forth in G-6.0106b. Similarly, no lower governing body can constitutionally define, diminish, augment or modify standards for ordination and installation of church officers. [p. 5]

Ordaining bodies have the right and responsibility to determine whether or not any “scruples” declared by candidates for ordination and/or installation constitute serious departures from our system of doctrine, government, or discipline; to what extent the rights and views of others might be infringed upon by those departures; and whether those departures obstruct the constitutional governance of the church. At the same time, attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary. G-6.0108a sets forth standards that apply to the whole church. These standards are binding on and must be followed by all governing bodies, church officers and candidates for church office. Adopting statements about mandatory provisions of the Book of Order for ordination and installation of officers falsely implies that other governing bodies might not be similarly bound; that is, that they might choose to restate or interpret the provisions differently, fail to adopt such statements, or possess some flexibility with respect to such provisions. Restatements of the Book of Order, in whatever form they are adopted, are themselves an obstruction to the same standard of constitutional governance no less than attempts to depart from mandatory provisions. [p. 6]

The Presbytery’s resolution would define the “essentials” of Reformed faith and polity by restating the Presbytery’s intention to enforce mandatory provisions of the Book of Order, when it has no authority to do otherwise. At the same time, declaring “essentials” outside of the context of the examination of a candidate for ordained office is inappropriate. As was stated in the 1927 Report of the Special Commission of 1925 (Swearingen Commission Report) Presbyterian Church in the United States of Am
erica Minutes, 1927, pp. 78-79:

One fact often overlooked is that by the act of 1729, the decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be in specific cases. It was no general authority that might be stated in exact language and applied rigidly to every case without distinction. It was an authority somewhat undefined, to be invoked in each particular instance. . . . It was clearly the intention that this decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be made after the candidate had been presented and had declared his [or her] beliefs and stated his [or her] motives personally, and after the examining body…had full opportunity to judge the man himself [or woman herself] as well as abstract questions of doctrine.

[ p. 6 ]

It would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit examining bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been adopted by the whole church, such as the “fidelity and chastity” portion of G-6.0106b, or any other similarly specific provision. On the other hand, the broad reference in G-6.0106b to “any practice which the confessions call sin” puts the responsibility first on the candidate and then on the examining body to determine whether a departure is a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity and the remainder of G-6.0108(a) with respect to freedom of conscience. The ordaining body must examine the candidate individually. The examining body is best suited to make decisions about the candidate’s fitness for office, and factual determinations by examining bodies are entitled to deference by higher governing bodies in any review process. [p. 7]

There is a lot there, but let me boil it down to the probably over-simplistic summary that “ordaining and installing bodies must examine candidates individually and can not set blanket standards for those candidates.” (And any polity wonk has to appreciate a decision that works in the report of the 1925 Special Commission which in turn refers to the Adopting Act of 1729. Sorry, its a polity wonk thing.)

So, if a presbytery has an issue of conscience regarding ordination standards and wants to be on record with a particular theological stance but can not officially declare standards what might be some options?  A few that I see:

1) Prominently maintain the status quo.  If you have that stance, under the Bush decision you can not declare it as a standard. But if your stance is clearly stated and advertised then candidates not in agreement are more than likely to find a more obliging presbytery.

2) Declare your standards anyway. While it might not be in agreement with the Bush decision, a presbytery could try this and wait and see if anybody complains, particularly in a judicial sense by filing a remedial case.  At the present time there is a lot of talk of mutual forbearance and not making further waves so a presbytery might be allowed to continue with this approach for a while.

3) Set it as a requirement for membership. The Bush decision has a suggestive footnote — “2. Governing bodies may impose other requirements on church officers, after ordination and installation, such as requirements to abide by ethics or sexual misconduct policies.” So what if these requirements were set outside of the examination process? What if fidelity and chastity were part of a presbytery’s ethics and sexual misconduct policies?

4) Sub-presbyteries. While flexible presbyteries are not a reality at the present time, what if we were to administer this on a smaller scale?  What if a presbytery were to become more of a “super-presbytery” with two administrative sub-groups?  Clearly certain constitutionally required functions, such as the moderator and the clerk, could not be sub-divided, but I think that the new Form of Government might just provide enough flexibility for some creative polity to make this happen.

There is another possibility that while not presently sanctioned by the PC(USA) does have a model in the new changes to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church‘s constitution that just became effective with the conclusion of their General Assembly last month.  In their case they needed a system to allow for differing understandings of ordination standards regarding women so they have modified their system to permit what I call “fuzzy presbytery boundaries.” It is set up so that a church with one stance that finds itself in a presbytery with the opposite stance can move to an adjoining presbytery that has a stance agreeable to them. This preserves a geographic component to presbytery membership as well as a respect for theological affinity.  It is not a fully flexible presbytery but an alignment based on both geography and ordination standards.

How the new language is implemented by each ordaining body is an issue that is just starting to develop and it will be interesting to see how this develops and what creative solutions may arise. Or maybe we will find out that creative solutions are not necessary but that the new language provides the flexibility for each presbytery to examine candidates regarding their own understanding of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the candidates gifts and talents. Stay tuned as this has a long way to go.

PC(USA) Polity Implications Of Amendment 10-A Passage

7 Replies

Since the voting in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on Amendment 10-A swung towards the affirmative I have had a number of people asking me, in one way or another, “So what will it mean?”  Well let me tackle that question with what I understand to be the knowns and the unknowns of the polity implications.

And as the voting gets down to just a few more votes required for approval there appears to be enough of this uncertainty circulating that the Office of the General Assembly has issued a Frequently Asked Questions paper.  The interesting thing is that I have not found it on the OGA web site yet, but it is being posted by presbyteries.

Now, this will become very polity wonkish very fast so if all you want is my opinion, and that is all that this discussion is, I do think that the new wording of the section we currently know as G-6.0106b shifts the responsibility back to the presbyteries and in doing so opens up the denomination for more local interpretation of ordination standards.  I also think that the moment there is more local interpretation there will follow the need for new GA Authoritative Interpretation, whether it comes from the Assembly or the Permanent Judicial Commission.

Let me first set out my presumptions that are going into the discussion leading to this conclusion:  1) Amendment 10-A becomes part of the Book of Order replacing the current G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” section. 2) The New Form of Government passes (currently leading 69-59 in the official tally and 72-65 on an unofficial one. 3) The Belhar Confession is not affirmed by 2/3 of the presbyteries. 4) The Authoritative Interpretation associated with the Report of the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity is still in affect. 5) That procedural aspects of GAPJC decisions related to the PUP AI are still in place. 6) That other GAPJC decisions regarding (i) ordination standards (with the one exception noted below) and (ii) marriage are still valid.

The best place to begin is probably with the wording of the proposed G-6.0106b:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240; G-14.0450) 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 requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003).  Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

First, some clean-up – Since the New Form of Government is being used for this exercise this is no longer G-6.0106b but is now G-2.0104b.  The reference to G-1.000 is now a little tricky since it refers to a whole chapter which exists in a new form.  The reference could be pointed to the beginning of the material that is in the old form which would now be at F-1.0200.  In general the wording has not changed but the change in position means the “Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life” has been pushed down in priority and the missional nature of the Church now gets top billing. 

Section G-14.0240 is now G-2.0402 and for this analysis appears to contain identical material regarding the examination for ordered ministry as a ruling elder or deacon.  The reference to G-14.0450 is regarding the final assessment for teaching elder and has been substantially reduced to remove the procedural items. However, I don’t see that these changes resulting in the new section G-2.0607 have substantial consequences relative to this amendment.  And the reference to the directory for worship (W-4.4003) remains the same.

Let me make just a couple of brief observations about the actual wording of the amendment.  The first is that it does explicitly make reference to installation, as well as ordination, of officers.  The second point is the inclusion of the phrase “shall examine.”  The old language was about the standards and the examination was left to other parts of the Book of Order, but always with the “shall” condition. Having said that, this adds a bit of required territory to the examination.  For ruling elders and deacons the Book of Order says in G-2.0402

…the session shall examine them as to their personal faith; knowledge of the doctrine, government, and discipline contained in the Constitution of the church; and the duties of the ministry.

And this section now adds

…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 requirements as expressed in the
constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003).

(Anybody want to submit an overture either consolidating this or adding the cross-reference to G-2.0402?)

The final point I want to make here is what I see as the awkwardness of the final sentence relative to our ordination language.  The new language says “Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions…” while the ordination questions in W-4.4003 uses slightly different language:

d. Will you fulfill your office in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and be continually guided by our confessions?

These may or may not be at odds with each other, but it will clearly be a point of discussion for some polity wonks.

The stated objective of this change, as expressed by the advice from the Assembly Committee on the Constitution is:

This overture seeks to restore the ordination practice and principles
affirmed in the Adopting Act of 1729, the paradigm through which the
tension between the differing points of view and the unity of the church
have been maintained through much of our denomination’s history.

And what is the Adopting Act of 1729?  This was an agreement by the members of the Synod of Philadelphia (at the time the highest governing body) about ordained officers agreeing to the Westminster Standards or being examined on their departures.  The preliminary notes to the Act include this:

And we do also agree, that all the Presbyteries within our bounds shall
always take care not to admit any candidate of the ministry into the exercise
of the sacred function, but what declares his agreement in opinion with
all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession, either by
subscribing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by a verbal
declaration of their assent thereto, as such Minister or candidate for
the Ministry shall think best. And in case any Minister of this Synod,
or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect
to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall
at the time of his making said declaration declare his sentiments to the
Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise
of the ministry within our bounds and to ministerial communion if the
Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about
articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship or government.
But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such Ministers or candidates
erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery
shall declare them uncapable of Communion with them.

Having that as a historical basis the 217th General Assembly adopted an Authoritative Interpretation recommended by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity which said:

a. The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government of the Book of Order set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation.

b.
These standards are determined by the whole church, after the careful
study of Scripture and theology, solely by the constitutional process of
approval by the General Assembly with the approval of the presbyteries.
These standards may be interpreted by the General Assembly and its
Permanent Judicial Commission.

c.
Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the
church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by
applying these standards to those elected to office. These
determinations include:

(1)
Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation
as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from
scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office,
(2) Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation.

Whether
the examination and ordination and installation
decision comply with the constitution of the PCUSA, and whether the
ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably,
responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a
candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing
bodies.

e. All parties
should endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another’s
decisions, according the presumption of wisdom to ordaining/installing
bodies in examining candidates and to the General Assembly, with
presbyteries’ approval, in setting standards.

At the present time this AI is still in effect, with certain modifications as noted below.

As presbyteries began working through this some of their procedures were challenged and several resulting remedial cases were summarized in the Bush v. Pittsburgh decision.  While this decision gave us several polity points, there are four relevant points, only the first of which will be nullified by the passage of 10-A.

  1. Candidates and examining bodies must follow G-6.0108 in reaching determinations as to whether the candidates for ordination and/or installation have departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity. Such determinations do not rest on distinguishing “belief” and “behavior,” and do not permit departure from the “fidelity and chastity” requirement found in G-6.0106b.
  2. The freedom of conscience granted in G-6.0108 allows candidates to express disagreement
    with the wording or meaning of provisions of the constitution, but does not permit disobedience to those behavioral standards. (quoted from the SJPC decision)
  3. Ordaining and installing bodies must examine candidates for ordination and/or installation individually.
  4. Attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary; and are themselves an obstruction to constitutional governance in violation of G-6.0108a.

With the modification of G-6.0106b the part of the Bush decision which says “The church has decided to single out this particular manner of life standard and require church wide conformity to it for all ordained church officers” will be out of date and irrelevant.

Regarding point 2 above, this has been a point of, shall we say “discussion,” between GA entities as  the 218th GA affirmed, in response to the Bush decision, that a departure can be in belief or practice.  And clearly point 3 from Bush is still applicable, as evidenced by the fact that the OGA FAQ makes repeated reference to needing to do examinations on a case-by-case basis.

There are several other relevant decisions on which the GAPJC mostly delivered procedural decisions that clarified that the examination regarding a declared exception must come at the same time as the final examination for ordination.  It would seem that this provision must still hold if a candidate sees a need to declare a departure in a particular presbytery.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the Sallade v. Genesee Valley decision may still be relevant.  This decision pre-dates the Book of Order “fidelity and chastity” language and was argued on the basis of the Interpretations of 1978 and 1979.  While the “fidelity and chastity” language appears to be gone, and the General Assembly has eliminated the earlier Interpretations, for a presbytery that finds that an active same-sex lifestyle does not reflect “…the desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life,” the GAPJC’s finding may still be applicable: “Therefore, this commission holds that a self-affirmed practicing homosexual may not be invited to serve in a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) position that presumes ordination.”  On the other hand, since this decision is based on Interpretations which are no longer in effect it may need to be completely relitigated. The other polity aspect that could make this decision irrelevant is the fact that it addresses call and 10-A is about membership.  While these two parts are closely linked, in our polity they are different steps in the process.

So, at this point the general agreement seems to be that there is no longer any specific prohibitions in the Book of Order to ordination and installation but that each ordaining body, Session or Presbytery, “…shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

In that light I think we are all well aware that a particular governing body could come down on either side of the question as to whether a self-affirmed practicing homosexual would meet the church’s “standards.”  The arguments from Scripture are well rehearsed at this time and attendance at your presbytery meeting where Amendment 10-A was voted upon is probably all that is necessary if you want to get an introduction to them.  The confessions are a bit quieter on the question.  The Heidelberg Catechism revision is not completed yet so the controversial wording is still present there, but with the knowledge that the new translation will probably temper that language.  It appears we do not yet have the Belhar Confession officially adopted to provide a model of broader inclusion of individuals as an extension of the racial inclusivity it speaks of.  And when the confessions speak of marriage it is usually in the context of “one man and one woman,” (e.g. 5.246, 6.131 & 6.133 ) or as an eschatological image.

While the Book of Order is not cited as a source of guidance here, the argument for “fidelity and chastity” as a standard could be made by extension of the definition of marriage in W-4.9001.  On the other hand, those who are arguing for inclusion can appeal to new language in section F-1.0403 where it says:

The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, God unites persons through baptism regardless of race, ethnicity, age, sex, disability, geography, or theological conviction. There is therefore no place in the life of the Church for discrimination against any person. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership. No member shall be denied participation or representation for any reason other than those stated in this Constitution.

So, if an explicit reason for exclusion has now been removed from the Constitution and no specific reason is listed, an argument could be made that now there must not be a barrier to ordination.

(For reference, this section is based on the old section G-4.0403 which said:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall give full expression to the rich diversity within its membership and shall provide means which will assure a greater inclusiveness leading to wholeness in its emerging life. Persons of all racial ethnic groups, different ages, both sexes, various disabilities, diverse geographical areas, different theological positions consistent with the Reformed tradition, as well as different marital conditions (married, single, widowed, or divorced) shall be guaranteed full participation and access to representation in the decision making of the church. (G-9.0104) )

I could go on, but suffice it to say that governing bodies will now have to wrestle with the ambiguity and different interpretations and understandings that the theological breadth of the PC(USA) embraces.  But lets tackle one more question…

What happens when a presbytery says “No!”?

I think that this is really the question that is on everyone’s minds and I think that over-all this will be an uncommon occurrence.  Most of the individuals and governing bodies are politick enough to try to defuse this before it becomes an issue.  However, I think that it is almost certain that there will be a case in the next few years that will be brought to a synod PJC as a remedial case.

It should be noted that the OGA FAQ is clear about this point:

6. What practical changes will we see?< br>

If pastors, elders, and deacons who are ordained in one area move to another location, they shall be examined by that ordaining body before being able to take up their office. That body may choose to apply ordination standards differently from the officer’s previous body.

7. Is the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians mandated?

No, it is not required, but it is no longer prohibited by specific Constitutional language.

12. May a presbytery continue to function with the standard of “fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” when examining candidates for ordination?

Yes, as long as the application is on a case by case basis. The new language calls the ordaining body to be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying ordination standards to each candidate.

13. Is a presbytery required to receive, by transfer of membership, an ordained sexually active gay or lesbian minister?

No, each presbytery determines which ministers to receive into its membership.

But, this would be just an opinion expressed by the OGA.  This is not a binding interpretation since that can only come from the Assembly or the GAPJC and they could decide differently on these questions.  (In fact, the two entities have been issuing different Interpretations on declared exceptions relative to practice as well as belief.)  To resolve the uncertainty will require a test case to go through the judicial system, an Authoritative Interpretation from the Assembly, or more definitive language added to the Book of Order.

As I indicate above, I think that there are enough Interpretations currently in place that a presbytery’s decision against a candidate, provided that the presbytery actually followed the detailed procedures the GAPJC has laid down so far, would withstand the challenge.  I think that this is particularly true of a candidate for ordination.  There is a “wildcard” regarding the decision most likely to arise in regards to an ordained teaching elder who is a candidate for an installed position in a different presbytery.  The issue that the American Presbyterian Church has always had with presbyteries deciding standards going all the way back to the Adopting Act is what we now have as F-3.0203.

These presbyters shall come together in councils in regular gradation. These councils are sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly. All councils of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The councils are distinct, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate council. The larger part of the church, or a representation thereof, shall govern the smaller. (emphasis added)

So if ordination is an “act of the whole church” can a differently governing body “choose to apply ordination standards differently from the officer’s previous body” as it says in question 6 of the FAQ.

There are other unknowns here are well.  One is what the nature and authority of the definition of marriage (W-4.9001) will be in the next few years.  Another, is the inclusivity statement in F-1.0403 mentioned above and whether this new wording, combined with the removal of an explicit requirement, will provide the basis for a new Interpretation.

As I wrap this up let me move on to the item that half of you are probably saying “when is he going to get to it” and the other half are saying “don’t go there, don’t go there, don’t go there…”  As much as we would like to think of this as ancient history, in many of the discussions I have been in this has been hovering like a ghost in the background and I think no discussion of the topic can really avoid it. SO…

One word – “Kenyon.”

Yup, I went there. 

Now for those who have not picked up on this it refers to a GAPJC remedial case in the United Presbyterian Church in the USA branch back in 1975.  The case is officially known as Maxwell v. Pittsburgh Presbytery. It involves Mr. Walter Wynn Kenyon, a candidate for ordination as a teaching elder who declared an exception to the church’s stand that women should be ordained as teaching and ruling elders.  He stated his Scriptural basis for this matter of conscience, said that he would not participate in the ordination of a woman, and that he would let others know the basis for his belief.  However, he also said that beyond that he would work with elders who were women and would not interfere with their ordination if it were done by others.  (For reference, the mainline Presbyterian church had been ordaining women as ruling elders for 44 years and as teaching elders for 18 years.)  The presbytery accepted his departure as non-essential and sustained his examination but the Synod PJC found that the presbytery had erred and on appeal the GAPJC concurred.

The GAPJC wrote:

The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and guided by its confessions, has now developed its understanding of the equality of all people (both male and female) before God. It has expressed this understanding in the Book of Order with such clarity as to make the candidate’s stated position a rejection of its government and discipline.

This is pretty much the same conclusion that the GAPJC came to in the Bush decision – that you can depart in belief but not in practice.  (It is argued whether or not Mr. Kenyon was departing in practice as well as belief, but the GAPJC decision rejects his argument that it is only in belief and provides their reasoning for that conclusion.)  But I find the language of the recent decisions an echo of this decision.  Consider one of the concluding paragraphs which makes no mention of the nature of the standard in question:

Nevertheless, to permit ordination of a candidate who has announced that he cannot subscribe to the cited constitutional provisions has implications for the Church far beyond that one instance. The precedent, if applied generally, would affect every session, presbytery, synod, and the General Assembly, and more than one-half of our Church’s members. The challenged decision of Presbytery was not unique or of but minimal significance. The issue of equal treatment and leadership opportunity for all (particularly without regard to considerations of race and sex) is a paramount concern of our Church. Neither a synod nor the General Assembly has any power to allow a presbytery to grant an exception to an explicit constitutional provision.

The implications of the Authoritative Interpretation from the Assembly permitting declaring departures in belief and practice is left as an exercise for the reader.

No, a Kenyon-like decision in the current debate regarding ordination standards is not very likely in the near or intermediate-term.  Before we get to that point additional Interpretations or explicit constitutional language will have to be in place.  But it is interesting the number of people on both sides of this issue that expect a similar decision sometime in the future.

Well, as you can see from the length of this article there is probably not a simple answer to what the polity landscape will look like in next few years.  It is why I am cautious in accepting the OGA FAQ as “the answer.”  There is plenty of room for new interpretations in the next few years even if no new language is added to the Book of Order. It will be interesting to see from whence the next refinement of this polity question comes.

Stay tuned…