It strikes many Presbyterians with surprise, that the General Assembly… should be largely occupied in discussing the question… They ask with displeasure, “Are fundamentals never to be settled among us? Is the church never to be relieved of these debates, which thus agitate the settled foundations of our theory?” We may answer to these indignant questions with an emphatic No. The good brethren who thus deplore these renewed discussions of first principles misconceive the nature of the human mind and of free institutions. While man remains the creature he is, such discussions are to be expected and desired. Each generation must do its own thinking, and learn for itself its own lessons in first truths and general principles. If we insist that this generation of Presbyterians shall hold our fathers’ principles on trust, and by mere prescription, the result will be that they will not hold them sincerely at all.

I will let you live with that quote for a few minutes.  (If the curiosity is killing you about who said it and when then jump to the end or do a web search for it.) In a sense this quote is timeless and maybe captures the unique nature of Presbyterianism better than any other I know.  And while there has been some recent discussion and lamenting about how slowly our polity can move, the truth is that for a church that is supposed to embody a covenant community we do move slowly because it is about discerning God’s will through the journey of the whole community.  You may remember that in the PC(USA)’s predecessors, women were not ordained as deacons until American Presbyterianism was into its third century (1906), it was another 24 years until women were ordained as ruling elders, and then an additional 26 for ordination as teaching elders.  Changes in ordination standards are slow in moving and as one widely-cited GAPJC ordination decision from 1975 testifies, these issues may still be unsettled decades later.

So, the decision from the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific that was released last week should be viewed as one little step in the larger context of the community’s discernment that has been on-going and is not yet complete.

I ultimately want to comment on the decision, and while I hesitate to once again recite the background that this decision comes out of, let me at least briefly remind those that don’t follow this debate as closely as some of us polity wonks of a few of the important background points that are applicable here:

First, while there have been multiple amendments sent to the presbyteries to try to remove or modify the ordination standards section in the Book of Order, also know as the “fidelity and chastity” section, G-6.0106b still remains a constitutional standard for ordination.  Yes, another amendment is being sent to the presbyteries this year but to date the collective discernment of the denomination has been to keep the standard.

Second, with the adoption of the Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity in 2006  the 217th General Assembly adopted an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) that included the following section on applying the standards to those seeking ordination:

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.

The AI then goes on to say that one governing body’s application of the standards is reviewable by higher governing bodies.

In response to this AI some presbyteries passed policies about what are essentials, but in the Bush decision the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) ruled that there could not be blanket policies, but rather candidates must be considered on a case-by-case basis.  However, in that ruling the GAPJC also stated that:

“Under our polity, violations of behavioral standards are to be addressed through repentance and reconciliation, not by exception or exemption. 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.” The fidelity and chastity provision may only be changed by a constitutional amendment. Until that occurs, individual candidates, officers, examining and governing bodies must adhere to it.

The 218th General Assembly (2009) chose to issue a new Authoritative Interpretation that clarified the intent of the PUP Report as expressed in the rational, which was not binding.  This AI contradicted parts of the GAPJC Bush decision and rendered those sections void.  The AI said:

The 218th General Assembly (2008) affirms the authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 approved by the 217th General Assembly (2006). Further, the 218th General Assembly (2008), pursuant to G-13.0112, interprets the requirements of G-6.0108 to apply equally to all ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Section G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).”

This AI was based upon an overture to the 218th GA from the Presbytery of John Knox and has acquired the informal title “Knox Authoritative Interpretation” or “Knox AI,” a title propagated in the decision we are about to look at to distinguish it from the earlier “PUP AI.”  The original overture from Knox carries the title “On Adopting an Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 to Ensure Proper Application of Ordination Standards.”

The third perforatory point I want to make is that although there have been several GAPJC decisions related to ordination standards all of them have dealt with procedural matters and issues of timing.  Specifically, the earlier cases have clarified that a statement of departure must be made by the candidate and assessed by the presbytery at the time of their examination for ordination.  Specific to this case GAPJC decision 219-11 (Naegeli and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco) specified that examination on a departure must take place at the time of examination for ordination.

While the brief (yes, for this issue that is brief) review above may be familiar to many of my readers, I include it here because in my discussion that follows there are points that refer to these pieces of the past history.

It is important to remember that up to this point all of the case history of all of the judicial cases dealing with declaring exceptions to ordination standards are related to the process of doing so and rulings have not been rendered related to a specific candidate’s declared exceptions and how the presbytery has dealt with them.  That is what makes this new decision different.

This new case, Eric Parnell, Bruce McIntosh, Cordelia Shieh, Margaret Gelini, Greg Roth, Marsha Roth, Randy Young, and the Session of Walnut Creek Presbyterian Church, Complainants, v. The Presbytery of San Francisco, Respondent, is a remedial case brought by the complainants following the November 10, 2009, examination for ordination of candidate Lisa Larges.  This was the court of first impression and the Synod of the Pacific PJC heard testimony on the case and in a 5-4 decision did not sustain any of the five specifications of error.  The minority submitted an extensive dissent in which they disagree with the majority on four of the five specifications.

The ruling of the majority can actually be summed up very succinctly:  The presbytery’s actions were consistent with the current Authoritative Interpretation and the previous GAPJC rulings.

The dissenting opinion is a bit more complicated but I would summarize that as: While the facts in the case are not in dispute there are essentials of faith and polity here for which exceptions should not be granted.

Now, if all you wanted was the executive summary you can move on and I invite the polity wonks to stick around and see if you concur with my analysis of the decision.

Let me begin with the fourth specification of error, the one everyone agreed not to sustain.  That specification was that the presbytery erred in granting a departure to G-6.0106b “because departures can only be granted with regard to the interpretation of Scripture, not conduct.”  The relevant section of the Book of Order here is G-6.0108b:

b. It is to be recognized, however, that in becoming a candidate or officer of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds. His or her conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church so long as he or she continues to seek or hold office in that body. The decision as to whether a person has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made initially by the individual concerned but ultimately becomes the responsibility of the governing body in which he or she serves. (G-1.0301; G-1.0302)

This looks like a good call on the part of the PJC because while the most recent AI addresses behavior this section does not place Scripture and conduct in this context.

Now considering the specifications of error which the PJC disagreed on – The first was that the candidate’s refusal to abide by G-6.0106b, a constitutional requirement, was equivalent to answering “No” to the fifth constitutional question for ordination about being “governed by our church’s polity.”  The second was that wishing to be exempted from G-6.0106b is “a serious departure from Reformed faith or polity.” The third specification of error was that the the presbytery was wrong to grant the exception because “such an act obstructs the constitutional governance of the church.”  Finally, the last error was that the exception that was granted “exceeds the bounds of freedom of conscience for one who seeks to hold office in the PC(USA).”

In answering all of these the prevailing decision references the most recent AI, the “Knox AI,” to argue that the process the presbytery followed complied with the current interpretations of the Book of Order.  Regarding whether the declared objection was “a serious departure” the decision says, in part:

In the absence of a preponderance of evidence showing that Presbytery erred in its decision to accept the candidate’s departure, this SPJC accepts the Presbytery’s decision that the candidate’s departure did not constitute a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity. (p. 4)

So, given the evidence at trial, and lacking strong evidence to the contrary, the SPJC finds no errors in the presbytery’s process and finds no reason to overturn their collective decision on the matter.

While the actual decision portion of the prevailing decision takes up about two pages, the dissenting opinion takes just over four pages.  The heart of the decision is the discussion of the second and third error specifications combined.  They begin their argument from the testimony of the expert witnesses for both sides:

From the testimony heard we conclude that the preponderance and emphasis of scripture supports the conclusion that the unanimous witness of both Old and New Testament is that fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness are Reformed mandates to be applied to those called to leadership in the Church. “Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable…” [I Timothy 3:2]. Many other texts, Old and New Testaments, confirm this conclusion, such as Genesis 2:24, Genesis 18:20ff, Mark 10:10, Romans 1:26-31, I Corinthians 6:9-10, Jude 7, to mention only a few. No texts suggest that fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness are in violation of Scripture or that infidelity in marriage or sexual activity in singleness are consistent and supported in Scripture.

For the Candidate to separate her actions from Biblical truth is a serious departure from Reformed faith. (p. 7)

They then go on to review the PUP AI and then discuss the examination process:

In this case, the facts are clear and undisputed. The Candidate for ordination to the office of Minister of Word and Sacrament appeared upon the floor of the Presbytery of San Francisco, and during her ordination examination, declared a departure pursuant to G-6.0108 using the process described in the PUP AI, specifically in section c(2).

In her Statement of Departure, the Candidate declared that she was bound by her conscience to reject the authority of G-6.0106b, with respect to the “requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between and man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness.” She expressly declared, “By my conscience, faith, and theology, I cannot and will not accept the terms of this standard”.

Each party to this matter urges divergent scriptural and constitutional interpretations but neither party contests the operative facts of this case. In a like manner, neither party asserts any deficiency in the process of the presbytery in arriving at its decision in this matter.

We are therefore squarely faced with the determination as a matter of law or polity whether the departure of the Candidate was a serious failure to adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith as expressed in the constitution.

We find that it was.

When it comes to the living of one’s life there may be considerable divergence of opinion of what it means to live one’s life “in obedience to scripture and conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church.” We may not have, nor may it be desirable to have, an exhaustive list of what those standards are. But we know one of them. The second sentence of G-6.0106b emphatically declares that it is the “requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” [italics added]. The language of the Constitution specifically and explicitly declares that requirement to be among the historic confessional standards of the church. (p. 8-9)

They finish this section by arguing for, and concluding, that the most recent AI and the Book of Order are at odds here.  “G-6.0106b and the Knox AI cannot both be honored in this case.” (p. 9)  Without citing the Bush decision they echo Bush where that decision says:

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)

and again from Bush:

The SPJC correctly stated that the fidelity and chastity provision of G-6.0106b is a mandatory standard that cannot be waived…. Presbyteries do not have the authority to restate or define such standards. (p. 7)

As I said, that is the heart of the dissent.  For error 1 the minority briefly argues that answering a constitutional question by saying “yes, except for…” is essentially saying no.  For error 5 the dissenting opinion appeals to the preceding argument about essential standards to say that if something is indeed essential, than rejecting it does exceed the bounds of conscience.

Finally, it is important to note the comment attached to the decision that, in part, says:

Given the importance of these issues to the instant parties, this Commission and the larger church body, we look forward to the GAPJC’s guidance and direction. This Commission joins with the parties of Bierschwale II in imploring the GAPJC to rule on the continued authority of Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh (Minutes 218-10, p.319) in light of the 2008 Authoritative Interpretation on G-6.0108b.

Well, the complainants have stated that they intend to appeal so a stay is in place for 45 days to give the complainants time to file the appeal and the GAPJC time to accept it.  This raises an interesting question about the appeal timeline and the voting on the amendment to G-6.0106b — Might an appeal be rendered moot and denied when no remedy is necessary if the amendment were to pass?  On the other hand, are these issues important enough and general enough that a GAPJC decision would be useful regardless of any changes to the constitution because the section at issue is actually G-6.0108 and not the “fidelity and chastity” language?

If you are interested in other coverage of the decision you can find it in all the usual places: Presbyterian News, The Outlook, The Layman , and the Covenant Network.

And two brief additional comments: 1) The 5-4 vote by the SPJC was in very similar proportions as the 156 to 138 presbytery vote to sustain the candidate’s examination.  (56% to 44% compared to 53% to 47%)  2) Counsel representing the complainants included Mary Naegeli who was the lead complainant on the earlier case I mentioned in this sequence, Naegeli and others v. San Francisco Presbytery.

So that is my take on this decision and the status of declared departures in the PC(USA).  Of course, declared departures and “scruples” are nothing new being almost as old as American Presbyterianism itself.  But once again, even as the denomination looks at adding to its confessional standards, there is the necessary discussion about what is an acceptable departure from the essentials of the Reformed faith.

And that quote at the beginning of this piece?  It may or may not surprise you that it is 150 years old – a point in time almost exactly half-way between the beginnings of American Presbyterianism and today.  We keep on arguing, but we have been for 300 years.  Polity takes time, struggle, and a willingness to be in discussion, discernment and prayer as we seek the will of God together.

And so for completeness I leave you with the full, unedited, opening line from Robert Dabney in his essay “Theories of the Eldership.”

It strikes many Presbyterians with surprise, that the General Assembly and our leading periodicals in this year 1860, one hundred and fifty years after the beginning of our church in America, should be largely occupied in discussing the question, “What is Presbyterianism?”