In the wake of the adoption of the report from the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity (PUP) by the 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) we heard a lot about how “the standards have not changed.”  For example: coverage of a press conference, a pastoral letter from the Moderator and Stated Clerk, and the Stated Clerk’s new  Advisory Opinion issued following the General Assembly all state that as a fact.

Now a new high-profile case is coming before a presbytery as a result of the passage of the PUP Report.  The Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area has called a special presbytery meeting for Saturday December 1 to consider the request of Mr. Paul Capetz to have his ordination as a minister of word and sacrament reinstated.  Mr. Capetz requested, and was granted release from the exercise of ordained office back in May 2000 and the presbytery’s Stated Clerk has confirmed that at the time no charges were pending.  Back in 2000 Mr. Capetz could not affirm the newly adopted Amendment B which inserted G-6.0106b into the Book of Order.  Now with the passage of the PUP report Mr. Capetz writes in his request for reinstatement:

In the meantime, however, a possibility then unforeseen by me has been opened up by the decision of the 217th General Assembly (2006) to approve the recommendations of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church as an “authoritative interpretation” of section G-6.0108 of the Book of Order.

He continues on later in his request:

Since the church has now seen fit to find a way beyond the impasse occasioned by the incorporation of G-6.0106b into the Book of Order, I have prayerfully discerned that it is appropriate for me at this time to request of the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area my reinstatement as a minister member.

Clearly something has changed.  Mr. Capetz explicitly says so.  The word from the top of the PC(USA) says that the standards have not changed.  So has the process changed?  Has the understanding of the standards changed?  Really the question is, if there are “standards” but they are no longer considered standard, what are they?  Why were they put, and continue to remain, in the Book of Order.  Unfortunately, I don’t think we are being honest with anyone when we say that the standards have not changed.  In the strict sense that the Book of Order has not been changed, that is true.  But in reality, to me, when the application and understanding of the standards has changed the standards have effectively changed.

Lest you think this is semantics, or that the PC(USA) is alone, just look at the current top controversy in the PCA with the Federal Vision theology.  Louisiana Presbytery is facing a church trial on charges that they failed to properly apply that denomination’s “standards” in the theological examination of a minister member.

I would like to commend the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area for the process that they will be undertaking at their special meeting.  Numerous documents are available on their special meeting web site and the docket clearly shows the discernment process they will be going through.  The landscape has changed and they are undertaking the process as the authoritative interpretation directs.

I will be interested to hear about the experience of the discernment process and the outcome.  For advance coverage of the meeting there is an article on the Layman Online as well as a post by Toby Brown on Classical Presbyterian.  At the moment that is all the other coverage I can find.