It is interesting that we are expecting two important decisions in two ordination standards cases in two different Presbyterian branches in two days. Furthermore, it appears that these decisions may not present final decisions but rather markers on the journey that these cases follow.
The first is today’s decision from the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific (SPJC) that is probably just a step in the interpretative ping-pong game going on within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) right now. This case comes in the “yes I can”/”no you can’t” discussion between the PC(USA) General Assembly and the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) over scrupling. The 217th GA (2006) adopted the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity (PUP Report) which included an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) that candidates for ordination could declare a departure from the standards of the church if they felt those standards were non-essential. Their presbytery would then have to decide whether to agree that the departure was about a non-essential. In response to this AI multiple presbyteries passed policies that G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” section, was an essential. In the case Bush v. Pittsburgh, the GAPJC said that a presbytery can not pass a blanket statement but must consider each case individually on its own merits. However, they also said that declaring a departure as a matter of conscience could involve belief but not practice. In response, the 218th GA (2008) passed a modified AI that said practice, as well as belief, could be scrupled. In this ping-pong game the little white ball is headed back to the judicial commissions. That is the general framework we find ourselves in at the present time.
But PJC decisions are not made in the context of a general question but decided on the specifics of particular cases — In this case Naegeli, Stryker and Gelini v. Presbytery of San Francisco. It is a remedial case filed against the Presbytery of San Francisco related to the Presbytery meeting of January 15, 2008, and as such the SPJC is the court to hear the case first with the full evidentiary hearing. At the January meeting the Presbytery, by a vote of 167-151, declared Lisa Larges, a candidate in the preparation process for ministry, certified ready to receive a call. As a practicing lesbian Ms. Larges declared an exception to the “fidelity and chastity” section of the Book of Order, which the Presbytery accepted with their vote. You can read more in my post after the meeting or the Presbyterian News Service article. And to remind you of the polity setting, this was after the 2006 AI, but before the 2008 modification.
Friday’s hearing before the SPJC was live blogged on The Bilerico Project and you can read the account there. One of the more interesting details was the SPJC’s decision that Ms. Larges’ testimony was not relevant to the case. This is not surprising since the case would focus not on Ms. Larges specifically, but how the Presbytery as a governing body handled the proceedings and made the decision. (A complaint specifically against an individual would normally be a disciplinary case.)
Ms. Larges has been in various stages of the ordination process since 1985 and the GA adoption of the AI’s produced a way for her to finally be ordained. She serves as the Ministry Coordinator of That All May Freely Serve (TAMFS).
The SPJC decision was released late today (thanks to PresbyWeb for a scanned copy) and this interesting decision hinges on two technical details of Presbyterian polity. The decision was unanimous.
Specifications of error 1 to 9 dealt with the SPJC review of documents and procedures from the Committee on Preparation for Ministry. The SPJC uniformly said that it “has no jurisdiction to review the actions of a committee of presbytery. (G-4.0103(f), D-6.0202a(1))”
Specification of error 12 was that the presbytery incorrectly granted an exception to a “mandatory behavioral ordination standard of G-6.0106b.” Instead of answering this error, the SPJC pointed out that the AI specifies that an exception must be declared during the examination for ordination and so this exception was voted on at the wrong point in the process. Errors 10 and 11, concerning the presbytery process, are effectively moot because of the decision on error 12.
Bottom line: This was the wrong point in the process for the presbytery to deal with the declared exception.
Relief granted: The status of “ready for examination” is rescinded but Ms. Larges remains on the rolls as a candidate. In addition, the Presbytery is admonished “to faithfully execute its constitutional obligations to the entire church to enforce mandatory church wide ordination standards.”
Consequences? The decision could be appealed at this point but I think that the SPJC got it right and so it looks like Ms. Larges should receive a call and be examined for ordination with her declared exception. (although it looks like the vote on “certified ready” must be redone with out the declared exception) And then repeat the judicial process? Being a SPJC decision I’m not sure that it directly affects Mr. Scott Anderson’s process in another synod, but it is something to keep in mind. John Knox Presbytery dealt with his “affirmation of conscience” on advancing him to candidacy. This does suggest a reshaping of the polity landscape since previous GAPJC decisions Sheldon v. West Jersey and Stewart v. Mission dealt with them during the preparation process. And keep watching the next few days to see if anyone says they do want to appeal this decision. Also, the decision is fresh and it is late in the day so give it a day or two for reactions.
Finally, I’ll comment that the media has generally not figured out the situation in the PC(USA) while covering this case. For example, an article on the KGO-TV web site says “Presbyterians may have their first lesbian minister.” Or from glaadBlog — “Lisa Larges may be first openly gay pastor in the Presbyterian church.” Both of these articles seem to overlook others who have been ordained previously, like Janie, as well as Paul, Ray, and Scott (who was ordained, renounced, and is now working to restore it). Yes, on this third attempt of hers Lisa has become the test case for the new openness to declare a departure, but I think I have heard her give credit to the few others who have gone ahead of her. In fact, Lisa does give her “forebearers” credit, although not by name, in a quote included in an radio piece from KPFK linked to by TAMFS. The reporter in the piece does a well-above-average job of describing Presbyterian polity, even if the anchor introducing it has a couple of mis-steps, like referring to Ms. Larges as a “deacon that has been denied ordination.” As we know, a deacon is also an ordained office so it is ordination to the ministry of Word and Sacrament that has been denied. (Yes, I know that in the grand scheme of things I’m being picky but the piece itself gets so much right that it sets a high standard.) Or take the article from the KCBS web site when it presumably makes reference to Amendment 08-B and says “There is a proposal to allow each of the 11,000
individual congregations to decide for themselves whether or not to
ordain gay and lesbian clergy.” I think they mean the proposal is before the 173 presbyteries which both decide on the amendment as well as act as the ordaining bodies for clergy.
Well, the journey continues whether it be back to the Presbytery for the examination or on to the GAPJC on appeal.
Tomorrow we can expect a decision for Aberdeen. Stay tuned.