There is a lot that came out of committees yesterday and I will try to highlight a few items today before the full Assembly begins meeting this afternoon.
For organizational purposes I will break these into a couple of different posts. Let me begin with Polity.
Ordination Standards
Committee 5 – Church Orders and Ministry had to deal with the ordination standards. One item is the Authoritative Interpretation from the 217th General Assembly. This has become a ping-pong game between the General Assembly and the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission. Since neither inherently over rules the other, the most recent to speak has the upper hand. The 217th General Assembly passed the Authoritative Interpretation proposed by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity about declaring exceptions to non-essentials. Last February the GAPCJ in the Bush decision said that candidates could declare exceptions, but that Presbyteries could not waive rules.
There were proposals before the committee to rescind the 217th AI, and proposals for a new AI as the return volley in the polity ping-pong match. The committee, by a vote of 43 to 15, chose to answer all the items in this category with item 05-12 where the committee crafted a new AI:
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).
Note the wording to answer the GAPJC decision: The reference “apply equally to all ordination standards” since the GAPJC cited that G-6.0106b was lifted up as a particular standard, and the reference to “departure…in matters of belief and practice” since the GAPJC said belief could be scrupled but practice could not be waived.
If this is adopted we will see what the return volley looks like.
The other item is the removal/modification of G-6.0106b. The committee by a 41/11/0 vote chose a “middle road” here and has answered all those overtures with item 05-09. This item would rewrite that paragraph.
| Current G-6.0106b | Proposed G-6.0106b |
| b.Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament. |
b. Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards. |
Many of the headlines circulating around are declaring the removal of G-6.0106b but this is only partially correct. They are correct that 1) if adopted by the GA, and 2) if adopted by the presbyteries, the current language would be gone. But in a strict sense it is being replaced by more flexible wording. This will be a long and drawn out issue, both on the floor, and there is a minority report, and again in the presbyteries. I should note however that the committee added a comment to say “Presbyteries are strongly encouraged to consider this overture using a process of listening and discernment.”
I should also note that this item would also add to chapter 14 of the Book of Order language that those being ordained must declare their readiness to assert to the constitutional questions.
Ordination Vows
The Committee on Church Polity, in item 04-02, crafted new language that requires new members of the church do answer the same questions as confirmands in front of the congregation. This language includes the questions by reference where the original overture listed out the questions.
Definition of Marriage
The Committee on Church Polity, in their longest and most heated issue, also debated changing the Book of Order language to make marriage between two people, not just between a man and a woman (item 04-08). By a vote of 38/20/2 they voted to deny the request with comment that includes the wording “while
trusting that the Church (PCUSA) will continue to seek ways and means
to seek God’s blessing for alternative forms of covenant between two
people.” At the present time I see no minority report posted for this one.
Form of Government Revision
From pretty close to the beginning it was becoming probable that the nFOG would be recommended out to the Presbyteries for study, reflection, and comment. The committee than decided, by a 45/20/1 vote that the comments would then go back to an “enhanced” FOG Task Force. This would be composed of a core of the original task force supplemented by others from around the church, including representatives from this committee. The report also contains an “unedited” list of comments on the nFOG.
Those are the major items. There are a bunch of other recommended changes to the Book of Order but these are the high-profile issues.
Thanks for the round-up. Very helpful, and really appreciate your work.
blessings,
dm