First, I need to clarify my previous post now that I have had a chance to more carefully review the three decisions. While all three General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission decisions went against the presbyteries, I read too hastily and it now appears to me that these three unanimous decisions should be seen as a decision against “restating” the Book of Order, not as a decision in favor of declaring scruples and granting exemptions.
Executive Summary: The three decisions can probably be best summed up with this quote from 218-10: Bush and Others v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh.
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.
My reading of this is that the GAPJC is waking a center line: You can’t adapt the Book of Order in any special way, whether that be declaring provisions as mandatory or by granting an exemption. It is what it is.
Full Discussion
With that summary out of the way, let me turn to a more detailed discussion of the cases. Late last week the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PC(USA)) heard arguments on three cases that involved Presbyteries passing resolutions about Book of Order requirements, especially G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” requirement, being mandatory or “essential.” For the sake of completeness I will list the cases here with full title and in the rest of the post will refer to them by number and presbytery.
218-10: Randall Bush, Wayne Peck, and the Session of East Liberty Presbyterian Church v Presbytery of Pittsburgh (218-10 Pittsburgh)
It should also be noted that 218-10 Pittsburgh was the lead decision and the other two reference it. Also, while none of the decisions contain a dissent, 218-15 Washington contains two concurring decisions that comment on some details but not on the final decision. However, 218-15 Washington did arrive at the GAPJC to have some procedural issues decided and the decision states that the other two decisions should stand as the answer to the validity of the Presbytery resolutions that are at the heart of the case. Other than to say that reading the history of the case is a good lesson in why we keep detailed minutes, I’ll leave the discussion of 218-15 Washington at that and for the constitutional questions focus on the other two cases.
In all three cases the Presbyteries, in the wake of the report as adopted of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity and the associated Authoritative Interpretation, adopted a resolution that basically said that mandates in the Book of Order are binding, the implication being that they are not up for negotiation as “scruples” or “exceptions.” One part of the Presbytery of Pittsburgh resolution reads:
Adopts the principle that compliance with the standards for ordination approved by the Presbyterian Church (USA) in the Book of Order is an essential of Reformed polity. Therefore, any departure from the standards of ordination expressed in the Book of Order will bar a candidate from ordination and/or installation by this governing body. Provisions of the Book of Order are signified as being standards by use of the term “shall,” “is/are to be,” “requirement” or equivalent expression
The Washington resolution is very similar and Olympia has the same sentiments in briefer form.
Well each was appealed to the respective Synod PJC The PJC of the Synod of the Trinity heard 218-10 Pittsburgh and 218-15 Washington and overturned the presbytery resolutions in both cases. The PJC of the Synod of Alaska-Northwest ruled on 218-09 Olympia and upheld the presbytery’s resolution.
The GAPJC ruled against the Presbyteries resolutions. However, in the written decisions for Pittsburgh and Olympia the GAPJC appears to be saying “Nothing has changed so you don’t need to change anything.” In addition to the lead quote above, the GAPJC also writes in 218-10 Pittsburgh:
As finally adopted by the General Assembly, the Authoritative Interpretation does not equate “polity” with “behavior.” Nevertheless, the church has required those who aspire to ordained office to conform their actions, though not necessarily their beliefs or opinions, to certain standards, in those contexts in which the church has deemed conformity to be necessary or essential… The candidate and examining body must follow G-6.0108 in reaching a determination as to whether the candidate for office has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity, but that determination does not rest on distinguishing “belief” and “behavior,” and does not permit departure from the “fidelity and chastity” requirement found in G-6.0106b.
And later on they write:
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.
And finally:
So the decision is:
For these reasons, the Resolution is unconstitutional and in error. It is not permissible for a presbytery or a session to define “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” outside of the examination of any candidate for office. Such a determination must be made only in the context of a specific examination of an individual candidate.
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.
The GAPJC decides 218-09 Olympia by quoting long sections of 218-10 Pittsburgh, overturning that Presbytery’s resolution and overturning the Synod PJC decision that upheld it.
So what do these decisions mean? It looks to me that the GA PJC is setting itself up to hear the Larges and Capetz case. If they hold to the reasoning in these decisions, as I read it, they look to overturn those presbytery actions as well. Or, this could be viewed as setting the case law so that if the Synod PJC’s refer to this case and decide against the ordinations the GAPJC may have no reason to hear the cases. But in the big picture, it looks like the GAPJC really is trying to walk a center line on this and to really show that “Nothing has changed.” And I think the unanimity of the decisions may be a signal of this as well.
The issue of course is that those other two cases will take some time to work through the system and the Assembly meeting this June could change the constitutional and polity landscape, or the membership of the GAPJC for that matter. However, in my opinion, the GAPJC has written reasonable decisions that set a precedent upholding the current PC(USA) constitution’s balance between conscience and standards that will be reviewed by upcoming cases. Stay tuned for the next cases, and for other people’s views of these decisions.
Hi – I’ve enjoyed discovering your site recently! And you’re the first I’ve found commenting on the PJC decisions.
I read them tonight as well, after seeing your post. My conclusion is similar to yours… the net effect is not much, other than perhaps to strengthen the specific behavioral requirement of G-6.0106b until it is changed.
It is frustrating to be seeking clarity from the church and have the GA, presbytery, and judicial systems all say, “We reject clarification and definition… you’re on your own.”
It does seem like the decision draws attention to the Capetz and Larges action, but leaves all of us in the presbyteries in the dark about examining and ordaining related to any other “essentials.”
The decisions also seem to underscore the authoritative interpretation coming out of the PUP report, something along the lines of “clarify no further, violations will be subject to review.”
I keep trying to simplify all this for folks who want to know what’s going on and that is a real challenge.
It’s something like telling a bunch of children, “You’re in a game; there are rules; we won’t tell you what they are; you decide; and you may be punished if you break them.”
Surely we can do better!
More to the point than my last post (which GA junkie is welcome to delete)…
Adding these PJC decisions to what has gone before, here’s my short version of the state of ordination and examination in the PCUSA right now:
It’s something like telling a bunch of children, “We’re playing a game and there are rules; we won’t tell you what they are; you decide what you think they are; no, you can’t tell anybody else what they are; one last thing… you may be punished if you break them.”
I’m not sure anybody would enjoy that game.
I don’t think the PJC is hiding the rules.
The rules are there. What the PJC is saying is that nobody meets all of the rules, and that in order to function we need to accept people who fail some of the rules. It’s up to us to look at people as individuals to determine “good enough”.
What a great site! Thanks for doing this for all our Presby tribes.
I agree with Robert- Clarity in boundaries is a good thing. There is a word we have for families that lack clear boundaries- dysfunctional. It is no stretch to think we really can do better, for everyone involved.
The polity question that most concerned me coming out of the PUP report was “is there consistency?” I realize that for years San Joaquin and San Gabriel have drawn the ordination line in a different place then Redwoods and Genesee Valley, just to pick a few. What happened after the AI was that people, groups and presbyteries seemed more emboldened to test or move the line, and the other side to more firmly define or hold the line. Both are very natural reactions when it is perceived that the line, the boundary, has become fuzzy or movable. It just seems part of our (fallen?) human nature. To me the GAPJC has effectively reset the boundary where it was before. And so we will have it drawn at different places at different times once again.
One of the reasons that I write this blog is because the same thing is happening in all different branches of Presbyterianism. For the Presbyterian Church in Ireland the polity/conscience issue that just erupted is women as pastors. For the conservative North American branches it is justification and the Federal Vision Theology. For the Church of Scotland, and some other branches, you can almost just drop the PC(USA) controversies into their GA and never know the difference. It is part of our nature as Presbyterians to engage in these discussions in our drive for “Always being Reformed” to recover our Biblical Heritage.
Mark,
I *think* Robert is commenting on the ‘Essential Tenets’ question. By saying we will uphold ‘essential’ tenets, means that there are tenets, and then there are tenets. How does one distinguish between essential and non essential? Especially, if one is forbidden from naming them. Thats the hidden rules thing, he was talking about- or at least I took him to be talking about.
To my mind the question needs to be dropped from our discussion or defined. The whole, ‘it depends on which presbytery you happen to be in at the time’ doesn’t cut the mustard. At least not in healthy families. Boundaries are a good thing, and knowing where they are, just makes everyone a whole lot happier.
It is interesting that the PC(USA) has the ordination vow about the “Essential tenets of the Reformed faith,” but has not, on the constitutional or national level, explicitly defined or enumerated them. (With all due respect to the Jack Rogers video) If pressed, the usual answer is that Chapter 2 of the Form of Government in the Book of Order covers that.
The down side is, as Dave points out, there are times in disagreements when we are looking for clear boundaries or rules to help settle things cleanly and those boundaries are not there or not firm.
The up side is that there are points where we can disagree on details and still agree on the “essential tenet” as a general concept. For example, the “Sovereignty of God” and “election.” [G-2.0500a(1)] My wife and I agree on that as expressed in Chapter 2 and in the confessions, but she is not nearly as “Calvinistic” about election as I am. In fact, when she was asked to serve as an elder and be ordained she nearly declined because her interpretation of that “essential tenet” was based on my theological views. Her view is completely orthodox within Reformed tradition and fortunately, after talking with me and going through the officer training, she realized that. I wish every officer was as concerned about checking that they can “receive and adopt” the tenets and not just say “well, the pastor hasn’t said anything I disagree with.” And I would hope that sessions are conscientious about educating perspective elders about them.
Anyway, that is one example where a “fuzzy boundary” has worked. But for some of these concepts expressed in general terms would we really be able to precisely and adequately define them in the specific?
Dave was reading my mind pretty well… I apologize for those two confusing replies… I was in the midst of a bad flu and not writing well. Let me try again:
1. Defining G-6.0106b as an essential behavioral standard for the church is a very significant thing, and maybe the most important thing coming out of this decision. With this ruling, it does seem that the church will re-enter a season of trying to delete, amend, or defend G-6.0106b. At this point it seems like G-6.0106b is the one essential standard that is defined for the church (which is a little sad). That leads me to…
2. Conservatives have for some time bemoaned the lack of a list of essential tenets (or behaviors) despite the assertion (vows even) that there are Reformed essentials to which we must adhere. In my mind the AI (coming out of PUP-rec. 5) increased this strange reality by appealing to the whole church to uphold “the Reformed essentials of faith and polity” while requiring local bodies to administrate these essentials in their examination and ordination. In my mind the PJC ruling further increases this strange reality by refusing local bodies the ability to define, clarify, re-state, etc.. the essentials. I can view this two ways: either the AI has charged us to do something and denied us the specificity to accomplish it; or, things have not changed at all since pre-PUP.
3. Hmm… that last sentence is new for me. I suppose I have been focusing on the first possibility, that the AI has charged presbyteries with doing something (interpreting, examining, ordaining) and denied us the specificity to accomplish it. I thought that some would take advantage of the resulting chaos. It may be, particularly with the PJC ruling, that the post-AI reality is no different than the pre-AI reality, with the new added clarity of G-6.0106b as one specific essential. If that is the case, the PJC has nullified the AI and clarified G-6.0106b.