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

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.