A Response to the
ACC’s Recommendation regarding Item 05-10: The Pittsburgh Presbytery
Overture Amending G-6.0108b to Include a Freedom of Ordaining Bodies
“within Certain Bounds”
by Robert A. J. Gagnon,
Ph.D.
Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary,Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2596
gagnon@pts.edu
June 22, 2008
The decision of the PCUSA Advisory Committee on the
Constitution (ACC) to recommend disapproval of Pittsburgh Presbytery’s
Overture 05-10 (“On Amending G-6.0108b Freedom of
Conscience ‘Within Certain Bounds,’ to Include a Freedom of Ordaining
Bodies within Certain Bounds”)
is based on
multiple inaccuracies and misunderstandings that suggest systemic
advocacy problems with the ACC. (For text of overture and ACC advice see
the appendix.)
The overture merely
establishes principles that, until recently, have been clearly
understood in the Presbyterian Church. Some circles of the PCUSA have
“forgotten” that standards in the Book of Order singled out from
amongst all other confessional standards, or put in ordination vows, or
repeated often throughout the Book of Order are, by definition,
essentials. Simply put, this overture simply requires that texts be read
reasonably, with attention paid to such clearly literary indicators of
meaning.
1. The Clarity of the
Three Indicators of Essential Status
Contrary to what the ACC
claims, there is nothing “unclear” about the overture’s three clear
indicators in the Book of Order for evaluating which “shall”
standards are essential.
Even my 7-year-old daughter (albeit a bright 7-year-old) understands
that if her teacher singles out for special mention one rule from among
a list of rules, or makes the class take a vow (i.e. promise) to obey
one rule in particular, or repeatedly mentions the rule throughout the
school year, the teacher must really want the rule to be obeyed. If a
7-year-old can grasp the import of these three indicators for
determining what is essential, then they are probably clear indicators.
So given that G-6.0106b
singles out from “among” all the “historic confessional standards of the
church” the “requirement” that ordained officers confine sexual
relations to “the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman,” is it
reasonable to conclude that the Book of Order does not treat this
requirement as essential for ordained officers? Or given that W-4.4003
puts in an ordination vow (and the first, at that) the necessity
of acknowledging trust in Christ as one’s “Savior” and “Lord of all,” is
it reasonable for any governing body to ordain someone who does not
believe that Jesus is one’s Savior and Lord of all? Or is it possible to
conclude reasonably that women’s ordination is not an essential, given
that the Book of Order affirms in many diverse contexts
women’s ordination (at least 6 times: G-6.0105, 14.0221, 9.0105a,
13.0111a, 1.0100b, 3.0401b), even going to the point of requiring that
governing bodies above the session level establish a committee on
representation to insure fair participation by ordained female officers?
The answer in all three cases is obvious. Why single out a standard from
amongst all others, or put it in an ordination vow, or repeat it often
unless the point is to say, “This standard is essential and absolutely
must be obeyed”?
Allowing governing
bodies to ignore obvious indicators of essential standards in the
Book of Order does not build up the peace and unity of the church.
2. Restoring Fundamental
Principles of Presbyterian Polity
Contrary to what the ACC
claims, the addition to G-6.0108b proposed by the overture does not
violate “a fundamental principle of Presbyterian polity” enshrined in
G-6.0108. It rather restores it by doing three things:
1) It
reasserts the national conscience of the church, a conscience that is
made clear ultimately through a decision of the majority of the PCUSA
presbyteries when amending the constitution, as was done in the case of
G-6.0106b.
This is consistent with “the historic principles of
church government that “a larger part of the Church … should govern a
smaller, or determine matters of controversy which arise therein,” and
“that appeals may be carried from a lower or higher governing body”
(G-1.0400).
2) It
helps to prevent local or regional governing bodies from committing
“serious departure” from “essentials of Reformed faith and polity”
(G-6.0108a).
This happens when they arrive at unreasonable
interpretations of the Book of Order by ignoring clear indicators
of what is essential.
3) It
helps to prevent local and regional governing bodies from “obstructing
the constitutional governance of the church” (G-6.0108a).
The GAPJC in the
2008 Bush case was correct in stating: “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” (p. 7). The GAPJC carries greater
authority than the ACC. The latter is only “advisory.”
The ACC thus errs when
it claims that obstructing the governance of the church involves only “a
refusal to carry out duties of office” (see its comment on 05-01). Such
obstruction also includes, according to the GAPJC, carrying out duties
expressly forbidden to the office, such as ordaining persons who have
not met the specific requirements for ordination that the Book of
Order indicates are essential by singling out from amongst all other
standards, placing in ordination vows, or repeating often.
The ACC need only apply
properly its own analogy to women’s ordination
(so its comment on
05-01) to see the distinction between an allowable freedom of
conscience (i.e. a right not to believe in the validity of women’s
ordination) and an impermissible obstruction of constitutional
governance (refusing to participate in the ordination of women).
Applied analogically to the “fidelity and chastity” clause in G-6.0106b
the principle here would suggest that officers of the church may have a
limited freedom of conscience to believe that homosexual practice (or
adultery, or faithful polyamory, or even pedophilia) is acceptable but
officers may not waive the “requirement” singled out from all “the
historic confessional standards of the church” that ordained officers
“live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man
and a woman … or chastity in singleness.” To ordain those who have not
met such a significant requirement—its significance indicated by the
singling-out effect, not to mention the historic position of Scripture
and two millennia of church history—would be as much an instance of
“obstructing the constitutional governance of the church” and a “serious
departure from [essential] standards” as refusing to ordain women or
ordaining someone who did not demonstrate “love of Jesus Christ as
Savior and Lord” (G-6.0106a).
3. Improper Appeals to
the 1729 Adopting Act and the 1927 Swearingen Commission
Contrary to what the ACC
claims, appeal to the 1927 Swearingen Commission Report offers little
substantive basis for recommending disapproval of Pittsburgh
Presbytery’s overture (05-10).
The Report’s statements
that essentials can be ascertained only in the ad hoc moment of
examining individual candidates (and then must be quickly forgotten
before examining the next candidate) and that there are no identifiable
churchwide essentials that can be “applied … to every case without
distinction” cannot be taken literally and absolutely without producing
nonsense conclusions that violate Presbyterian heritage and polity.
First, it is an oxymoron
to call a churchwide “essential” something that can only be essential
for a particular person at a particular time.
By very definition an essential of Reformed faith and
polity is applicable to the whole church and so “to every case without
distinction.” Indeed, there could be no higher judicial review of a
lowering governing body’s decisions if there were no identifiable
churchwide essentials applicable to all cases. For on what basis could a
higher court charge error in a lower governing body if only the
governing body that is examining a given candidate can determine
essentials?
Second,
as we have seen above, even the ACC and the John Knox overture
(05-12) admit that governing bodies absolutely cannot ordain anyone to
office who will not carry out the duties of that office. What is
this if not a tacit admission that there are some identifiable
churchwide requirements that must be “applied rigidly to every case
without distinction,” i.e., defined as essential prior to, and
independent of, the particular examinations of particular candidates
(contra Swearingen).
Third, the Swearingen
Commission Report erred in citing the
Adopting Act of 1729
as precedent for the view that there are no identifiable churchwide
essentials applicable “to every case without distinction” for the
Adopting Act addressed only a finer point of Calvinist doctrine, not the
basic tenets of Reformed belief or sexual standards.
The Adopting Act proper declared that
the Westminster Standards were “the confession of their faith, excepting
only some clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters”
that could be improperly interpreted to mean that the State could
control the doings of the Synod or “persecute any for their religion”
(emphasis added).
In 1736
the same Synod adopted an “Explanation of the [Adopting] Act” in which
it reaffirmed that the members of the Synod “still do adhere to
the Westminster Confession, Catechisms, and Directory, without the
least variation or alteration, and without any regard to said
distinctions” between essential and nonessential, excepting “only”
certain interpretations of clauses pertaining to the authority of the
state over the church (emphases added). Apart from this exception, a
governing body in the midst of examining a candidate had no power to
allow candidates for office to deviate from the Westminster Standards.
Fourth,
the church has always operated with many implicit churchwide essentials
that are not subject to the whims of individual ordaining bodies.
We won’t ordain persons who
believe that God does not exist or is sovereign over nothing. We
(hopefully) won’t ordain anyone who believes that Jesus was a charlatan
or at least not Savior and Lord. We won’t ordain any card-carrying,
active members of the Klu Klux Klan or skinhead Nazi groups. We won’t
ordain any persons who regularly beat their spouse. We won’t ordain any
candidates having regular sexual intercourse with their parent or
sibling, even if the relationship is “committed” and monogamous. On and
on one could go. No reasonable person would seriously argue that any of
these offenses are not
violations of implied churchwide essentials or that
candidates who commit them may conceivably have other redeeming
qualities that would offset these offenses. The only reason why the
PCUSA doesn’t explicitly refer to them as essentials in the Book of
Order is because no one seriously contests them as implied
ordination essentials. It has absolutely nothing to do with a reluctance
to define them as such.
Now it is
true that the PCUSA has been reluctant to draw up a comprehensive
list of essentials
for ordination ever since the fundamentalist controversy in the early
twentieth century. But that is different from having no specific
essentials. Since the time of the fundamentalist controversy the
PCUSA has approached the issue of essentials more on a need-to-know
or as-conflict-arises basis. When an historic or newly developed
essential comes under attack or questioning, or attempts are made to
circumvent it, the PCUSA has acted to assert its status as essential in
the Book of Order. This has been true in at least three
matters: confession of Christ as Savior and Lord (the first ordination
vow), women’s ordination (often repeated), and the sexuality standard in
G-6.0106b (explicitly singled out from among all confessional standards
for the purpose of stressing compliance, approved in 1996-97 and then
reaffirmed by ever-increasing margins in 1997-98 and 2001-2002).
Fifth, the ACC errs in
suggesting that no proposed constitutional amendment should ever be
approved that conflicts with prior authoritative interpretations (like
the badly worded Swearingen Commission Report). This would be a
violation of constitutional due process.
A constitutional
amendment by definition trumps all prior authoritative interpretations.
The ACC itself has been willing to recommend new authoritative
interpretations that contradict prior authoritative interpretations (for
example, endorsing PUP recommendation 5 in 2006 which contradicted the
2001 GAPJC Londonderry decision; or supporting now the John Knox
overture that contradicts the 2008 GAPJC Bush decision).
4. Why the GAPJC “Bush”
Decision Is Not Enough
Contrary to what the ACC
suggest, the GAPJC decision in
Bush v. the Presbytery of Pittsburgh
(Remedial Case 218-10)
does not adequately answer the concerns of this
overture.
First, the Bush
decision does not provide the clear indicators or guidelines for
defining essential standards;
namely, “standards specified in ordination vows in the Book of Order; standards
singled out in the Book of Order for compliance from amongst other
standards; and standards oft repeated in diverse contexts in the Book of
Order.”
Second, the Bush
decision sometimes contradicts itself
as when it claims both that essentials
are defined only in the context of examining a candidate for office and
that essentials can be predetermined when they are specific and singled
out in the Book of Order.
Third, and most
importantly, the GAPJC decision in Bush offers only an
authoritative interpretation of the Constitution that could be easily
overruled by a new GA “authoritative interpretation” such as the John
Knox overture
(Item 05-12)—an overture, incidentally, supported by the ACC. An
amendment to the Book of Order is needed in order to make secure
the principle that the Book of Order provides some indicators of
essential standards that cannot be ignored by GA “authoritative
interpretations.”
5. How This Overture
Differs from Mandatory “Shall” Overtures
Contrary to what the ACC
claims, the Pittsburgh Presbytery Overture significantly differs from
other overtures
(like Item 05-07) that seek to determine essentials
solely by the use of “shall” language in the Book of Order.
It proposes specific clear indicators that distinguish between
essential and nonessential “shall” provisions: standards enshrined
in ordination vows (like the confession of Christ as Savior and Lord),
standards singled out from among other standards (like the requirement
that sexual relations be confined to the covenant of marriage between a
man and a woman), and standards frequently repeated in diverse contexts
of the Book of Order (like women’s ordination).
6. Why Adding More
Specific Clauses to G-6.0106b Won’t Work
The ACC’s suggestion that the GA could replace the
Pittsburgh Presbytery overture with a revision of G-6.0106b containing “clear
and specific limitations on the conduct of candidates for ordination”
would do nothing to address the ACC’s claim that it is anti-Presbyterian
to formulate essentials applicable “to every case without distinction.”
For there already is a “specific limitation”
in G-6.0106b that the ACC and the John Knox overture are ignoring: “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.” If the ACC and John Knox
overture refuse to recognize the enforcement of this “specific
limitation” as binding on all ordaining bodies, why would they recognize
the binding character of any newly added, specific limitation?
What is needed is an addition to G-6.0108b that
establishes clearly that the responsibility of a governing body to
determine whether a candidate has departed from essentials “does
not give the governing body constitutional grounds to define essentials
in ways that ignore clear indicators in the Book of Order regarding what
is essential”
(to quote from the wording of the overture).
No organization is without its biases and the ACC is no
exception to this rule. It has even gone to the lengths of arguing that
the church cannot call to repentance persons who do not regard their
behavior as sinful—a stance that would effectively eliminate repentance
altogether from the church since few offenders consider their behavior
to be wrong, especially as regards sexual offenses. Delegates to the
2008 General Assembly should keep in mind that the ACC is only an
advisory body whose advice should be subject to the same critical
scrutiny that it gives to overtures.
Appendix: Text of
Pittsburgh Presbytery Overture 05-10 and ACC Advice
05-10 On Amending G-6.0108b Freedom of Conscience “Within
Certain Bounds,” to Include a Freedom of Ordaining Bodies
within Certain Bounds.
Sponsor:
Pittsburgh Presbytery
Committee: Church
Orders and Ministry
http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=1477
RECOMMENDATION
The Presbytery of Pittsburgh
overtures the 218th General Assembly (2008) to direct the Stated Clerk
to send the following proposed amendment to the presbyteries for their
affirmative or negative vote:
Shall G-6.0108b (Freedom of
Conscience “Within Certain Bounds”) be amended as follows: [Text to be
added is shown as italic.]
“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 responsibility does not give the
governing body constitutional grounds to define essentials in ways that
ignore clear indicators in the Book of Order regarding what is
essential. These indicators include standards specified in ordination
vows in the Book of Order; standards singled out in the Book of Order
for compliance from amongst other standards; and standards oft repeated
in diverse contexts in the Book of Order.”
RATIONALE
The controversial, narrowly adopted (57
percent) 2006 Authoritative Interpretation (AI) of G-6.0108b (“Freedom
of Conscience within Certain Bounds”) encourages local and regional
ordaining bodies to ignore clear indicators in the
Book of Order
itself that certain standards are essential
for ordained officers.1
Three such indicators are when a particular
standard is specified in
ordination vows (the affirmation
Christ as Savior and Lord),
singled out from amongst other
standards for special compliance
(the standard for sexual purity), or
repeated often in diverse contexts
(acceptance of the ministry of women).2
These contexts create a reasonable expectation among reasonable readers
that the particular standard must be essential. Otherwise, there would
be no reason for including it in an ordination vow, singling it out from
amongst other standards, or repeating it in diverse contexts.3
Yet the rationale for the 2006 AI states
that an ordaining body can judge noncompliance with the sexuality
standard in G-6.0106b not to violate essentials,4
despite the fact that G-6.0106b clearly
singles out
from “among” “the historic confessional standards of the church” the
“requirement” that ordained officers confine sexual intercourse to “the
covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.”5
If an ordaining body can ignore such a clear
literary indicator of what is essential,6
then an ordaining body could just as easily judge a departure from the
first ordination vow requiring trust in Christ as one’s “Savior” and
“Lord of all” (W-4.4003) or the declaration of a scruple with regard to
the acceptance of women’s ordination not to violate the essentials of
Reformed faith and polity.7
This is especially so since the task force rationale cites the Adopting
Act of 1729 as establishing a virtual absolute right on the part of
local and regional ordaining bodies to determine for themselves what
standards are essential.8
Inasmuch as the spin given by 2006 AI on
G-6.0108b runs counter to the purpose for which it was formulated—namely
to protect a national
standard (i.e. women’s
ordination) from candidates who might declare a contrary scruple—it is
necessary to reassert the freedom of the collective conscience of the
denomination as a whole, especially as enshrined in its constitutional
documents.9
As to answering possible
objections to the amendment
the following may be noted:
1. Someone might counter that the 217th
General Assembly (2006) added to the task force’s AI a safeguard;
namely, that higher governing bodies may review “whether the examination
and ordination and installation decision comply with the constitution of
the PC(USA).” Even so, this addition did not offer the courts themselves
any guidelines for determining essentials in the
Book of Order
that would safeguard against excessive
judicial activism (as can be seen from the recent decision of the PJC of
the Synod of the Trinity; cited in Endnote 7 below).
2. Someone
might contend that not all “requirements” or “mandated” practices are
essential and that consequently failure to comply with the “mandatory”
sexual “requirement” in G-6.0106b is not a necessary bar to ordination.
While such contentions regrettably make words mean what they do not
normally mean and nullify clear distinctions in the
Book of Order’s
Preface between mandated practices on the one hand and practices merely
recommended or permitted on the other hand, they are nevertheless beside
the point here. We can all agree that the implicit literary force and
effect of
singling out
for
compliance a particular requirement from amongst all other standards is
to establish the essential status of the requirement. The same holds
true for inserting a standard in an ordination vow (so the affirmation
of Christ as Savior and Lord) or repeatedly citing a standard in diverse
contexts (the validity of women in ministry).
3. Some may fear that this amendment
establishes too much certitude in interpreting texts or creates a
detailed litmus text of orthodoxy. Such a fear would be misplaced. The
purpose of this amendment is
not
to contend that all
texts are equally obvious or to define what
all
the essentials are as regards ordination
standards. Rather the purpose is to prevent arbitrary or
ideologically-based circumventions of some obvious essentials.10
Put differently, the purpose of this amendment is to establish that
some
standards in the
Book of Order
are clearly presented as essential (i.e.
necessary barriers to ordination when not fulfilled by the candidate)
even though the precise word “essential” is not used.
A related purpose is to reassert that,
despite some radical postmodernist views to the contrary, the
communication symbols that constitute the written text of the
Book of Order
and the literary conventions that accompany
their use must be given their normal agreed-upon sense if church members
are to have any confidence in the process of discernment. Certain
literary moves such as placing a given requirement in the context of an
ordination vow, singling it out to make a special point about the
necessity of compliance, or citing it repeatedly in diverse contexts
create an implicit contract of meaning with reasonable readers
interpreting reasonably and contextually. Not to draw the obvious
conclusion that such contexts establish the ordination requirement as
essential
is to violate that contract of meaning and engender distrust and
cynicism regarding process.11
In short, there is nothing radical about
this amendment. It simply reinstates the practice of reading literary
indicators of meaning in the
Book of Order
reasonably—a practice that
had generally operated before the passage of the 2006 AI on G-6.0108b.12
Endnotes
1.
The AI states that “ordaining and installing bodies … have the
responsibility to determine … whether any departure [from standards]
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.”
2.
While not an exhaustive list, these three indicators do have great
relevance for current debates in the recent history of the PC(USA).
3.
The necessity of accepting women’s ordination is repeated in diverse
contexts throughout the Form of Government of the
Book of Order.
Section G-6.0105 makes clear that “Both men and women
shall
be eligible to hold church offices. …” [emphasis added]. Likewise,
G-14.0221 states: “Every congregation shall elect men and women from
among its active members . . . to the office of elder and to the office
of deacon. …” Section G-9.0105a (“Committee on Representation”)
mandates: “Each governing body above the session shall elect a committee
on representation, whose membership shall consist of equal numbers of
men and women.” A specific duty of this committee is to “advocate for
the representation of … women” (G-9.0105c). According to G-13.0111a,
“Consideration shall be given to the nomination of equal numbers of
ministers (both women and men) … .” Section G-1.0100b (“Christ Calls the
Church Into Being”) refers to Christ “exercising his authority by the
ministry of women and men … .” Section G-3.0401b (“Called to Openness”)
states: “The Church is called . . . to a new openness” about “becoming
in fact as well as in faith a community of women and men … .”
4.
The text of G-6.0106b is as follows: “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” [emphasis added].
5.
According to the Final Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace,
Unity, and Purity of the Church: “If an ordaining or installing body
determines that an officer-elect has departed from G-6.0106b, … [and
judges this departure] not to violate the essentials of Reformed faith
and polity…. then there is no barrier to ordination” (A
Season of Discernment,
pp. 40-41, ll. 1222-29).
6.
If a teacher or parent should say, “Among all my requirements I want to
point out this particular requirement as something that must be complied
with,” then a student or child, respectively, who contended that the
requirement was not “essential” would be in obvious, even perverse,
error.
7.
An example of how this might happen occurred on May 16, 2007, when the
Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Trinity ruled in case
no. 06-09 that the Presbytery of Pittsburgh could not define
any
essentials prior to
specific cases and then must redefine essentials for each new ordination
examination: “Essentials of the faith . . . cannot be predetermined. ...
[D]epartures from essential tenets, must be determined on a case by case
basis within the ordination process.” The problem with this reasoning is
that if an essential has to be determined on a case-by-case basis, then
it is not “essential” as a churchwide standard. It can only be an
essential for the particular case of a particular person. By this
decision the presbytery could not “predetermine” that believing in
Christ as Savior and Lord or accepting the validity of women’s
ordination is an “essential” for ordination. The ordaining body would
have to revisit the question of whether this is an essential at each and
every ordination examination.
8.
In point of fact, the Adopting Act of 1729 addressed finer points of
Calvinist doctrine contained in a voluminous, undifferentiated document
like the Westminster Standards. It was certainly never intended to allow
local or regional ordaining bodies the autonomy to ordain someone who
denied the lordship of Jesus Christ or who engaged in sexual intercourse
outside the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.
9.
What was the point of the majority of the presbyteries in voting to
incorporate this sexuality standard in the
Book of Order
in 1996-97 and then to
deny by ever greater margins vigorous attempts to remove it in 1997-98
and 2001-2002 if not to communicate this: “Failure to comply with this
singled-out standard would be a
necessary
barrier to ordination”? If the majority of presbyteries had only wanted
to have a standard that could be viewed as nonessential, there would
have been no reason to single it out for compliance in the Form of
Government.
10.
The Presbyterian Church operates on a principle of connectionalism. This
includes the right to establish on a national level some minimal beliefs
and practices for officers of the church that, when met with
noncompliance, become necessary barriers to ordination. For example, the
national governing body today could not, and would not, allow the
ordination of avowed racists, participants in loving adult-consensual
incest or polyamory, persons who declared Jesus to be delusional, or
even persons who rejected the validity of women’s ordination.
11.
The alternative is a way of reading texts where there are no generally
accepted conventions for expected meaning. This would render all texts,
including every standard expressed in the
Book of Order,
as meaningless. Then there would
be no point to reading, interpreting, citing, adjudicating by means of,
or amending the Constitution of the PC(USA) except as an exercise of
raw, arbitrary power. And then there would be no point to the existence
of the PC(USA) as a denominational entity.
12.
At the time of the writing of this overture, it is unclear whether the
proposed extensive revisions of the Form of Government will replace the
current version. If it does, then the appropriate adjustments in the
proposed amendment are to be made. Based on the draft of the proposed
new FOG retrieved from
http://www.pcusa.org/formofgovernment/pdfs/form-of-government.pdf on
1/7/08, “G-6.0108b” would have to be replaced with “G-2.0104”; “Freedom
of Conscience within Certain Bounds” with just “Freedom of Conscience”;
and “governing body” with “council.”
COMMENT
ADVICE FROM THE ACC
Advice on Item 05-10—From the Advisory Committee on the
Constitution.
The Advisory Committee
on the Constitution advises the 218th General Assembly (2008) to
disapprove Item 05-10.
Rationale
The Advisory Committee
on the Constitution refers the 218th General Assembly (2008) to its
advice concerning Item 05-01, which sets forth the background that the
Advisory Committee on the Constitution believes the assembly should
consider in addressing each of the items related to ordination and
installation of church officers.
Initially, the 218th
General Assembly (2008) may wish to consider the application of this
authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 in
Bush v. the Presbytery of Pittsburgh
(Remedial Case 218-10), as discussed in the Advisory
Committee on the Constitution’s advice with respect to Item 05-01. If
the assembly believes that this application answers the concern raised
in the rationale to the overture, it may answer the overture by
disapproving it with the comment that the
Bush decision has
addressed the concern raised in the overture.
Item 05-10 seeks to
amend G-6.0108b to prevent governing bodies from concluding that a
departure from certain “clear indicators” are not departures from that
which is essential in Reformed faith and polity. The proposed amendment
defines these “clear indicators” as including three categories: (1)
standards specified in ordination vows in the
Book of Order; (2)
standards singled out in the Book
of Order for compliance from among other standards; and (3)
standards “oft repeated in diverse contexts in the
Book of Order.” In effect,
this proposed amendment has an intent similar to the proposed amendment
to G-6.0108b proposed in Item 05-07, which seeks to amend G-6.0108b to
add a provision that a governing body cannot ordain or install a
candidate who is “unwilling to abide by all of the mandatory provisions
of the Book of Order.”
The Advisory Committee
on the Constitution advises disapproval of the proposed amendment for
three reasons. First, the proposed category of “clear indicators” is
less than clear. Unclear standards do not build up the peace and unity
of the church.
Second, the Advisory
Committee on the Constitution does not believe that modifying the
language of a provision that reflects a fundamental principle of
Presbyterian polity is an appropriate means of addressing concern with
the application of that standard to G-6.0106b. As was stated in the 1927
Report of the Special Commission of 1925 (the “Swearingen
CommissionReport”) Minutes,
PCUSA,1927, Part I, pp. 78-79:
One fact often overlooked is that by
the Act of 1729, the decision as to essential and necessary articles was
to be in specific cases. It was no general authority that might be
stated in exact language and applied rigidly to every case without
distinction. It was an authority somewhat undefined, to be invoked in
each particular instance … . It was clearly the intention that this
decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be made after the
candidate had been presented and had declared his [or her] beliefs and
stated his [or her] motives personally, and after the examining body…had
full opportunity to judge the man himself [or woman, herself] as well as
abstract questions of doctrine.
As the Advisory
Committee on the Constitution has advised with respect to other matters,
if the 218th General Assembly (2008) is concerned with the application
of G-6.0108 to G-6.0106b, the appropriate course would be to redraft
G-6.0106b to set forth clear and specific limitations on the conduct of
candidates for ordination or installation in place of the current
incorporation of confessional references to sinful conduct. Likewise, if
the intent is to examine candidates concerning each of the questions for
ordination or concerning their beliefs regarding the appropriateness of
the ordination of women, amendment to G-6.0106b making such examination
questions mandatory is a more appropriate avenue to attain that goal.
Consistent with the
Advisory Committee on the Constitution’s advice concerning Item 05-10,
if the 218th General Assembly (2008) does not believe that
Bush addresses the
concerns raised sufficiently and desires that G-6.0108b not be applied
to making such a determination in the context of an examination for
ordination or installation, the Advisory Committee on the Constitution
advises the assembly to either (1) withdraw the authoritative
interpretation of G-6.0108 and approve an authoritative interpretation
of G-6.0106b defining which practices the confessions call sin; or (2)
submit to the presbyteries an amendment to G-6.0106b that replaces the
phrase “practices the confessions call sin” with a list of conduct the
assembly believes should bar ordination or installation or some other
standard that does not require definition through interpretation of the
confessions.
Impact of the
proposed revisions to the proposed revised Form of Government before the
assembly: To the extent the 218th General Assembly (2008) wishes to make
amendment to the current G-6.0106b, the identical provision in the
proposed Form of Government is found at G-2.0103b. To extent the 218th
General Assembly (2008) wishes to make amendment to the current
G-6.0108, the identical provision (although not divided into two
paragraphs) in the proposed Form of Government is found at G-2.0104.
COMMENT
The Advisory Committee
on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) advises that Item 05-10 be answered by
the action taken on Item 05-12.