Three Clear Indicators in the
Book of Order regarding
Ordination Essentials:
A Plea for
Theological Sanity and Constitutional Honesty
by Robert A. J.
Gagnon, Ph.D.
Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary,
gagnon@pts.edu
Feb. 4, 2008
For a PDF version with proper pagination
and format click
here
I am a professor at a
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) seminary. Let’s suppose I make the
following announcement in a class at the start of the term:
Class, you are, of course, obliged to follow the requirements for
classroom behavior and work outlined in the Seminary’s Student
Handbook. I won’t take up class time by enumerating these. You are
responsible for reading the Student Handbook so that ignorance is
no excuse. However, among all the requirements listed therein I will
single out one in particular for special mention: If you are caught
cheating on an exam in this course or plagiarizing in your term paper
you will not merely receive a failing grade for this course but, in
accordance with Student Handbook policy, be subject to “immediate
dismissal by action of the faculty.” So don’t do it. Enough said. Let’s
move on to more pleasant subjects.
Suppose that, after
making such an announcement, a student concluded: “Dr. Gagnon has given
us no clear indication that he regards compliance with the code of
academic honesty as an absolute essential for the course.” Could this be
regarded as a reasonable interpretation of my action in singling out the
Seminary’s policy on cheating and plagiarism from amongst all other
requirements? I would suggest that no sane person interpreting my words
reasonably could possibly come to such a conclusion.
Or suppose that I had
students take a vow not to cheat on exams or plagiarize papers.
Would that send an ambiguous signal? Or suppose that I repeatedly
mentioned throughout the term, in diverse contexts, that cheating and
plagiarizing are not to be done. Would this send an unclear message? The
questions are obviously rhetorical. No person with any modicum of good
sense could reasonably protest, after being caught cheating or
plagiarizing, that I had given no clear indication in class that such a
violation would perforce be prosecuted in accordance with Seminary
policy. The complaint, “But I didn’t realize that this was such a
serious matter,” would ring hollow indeed.
Yet this is exactly the
pretense going on among much of the leadership of the PCUSA today. The
chickens are now coming home to roost. The negative effects of the PUP
(“Peace, Unity, and ‘Purity’”) Task Force’s “Authoritative
Interpretation” of G-6.0108b (“Freedom of Conscience within Certain
Bounds”)
are now being felt:
-
On May 16, 2007 the Permanent Judicial
Commission of the Synod of the Trinity ruled in an 8-3 decision that
the Pittsburgh Presbytery could not define any essentials prior
to specific cases but rather 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”
(case no. 06-09). This ruling came in response to a resolution passed
in Oct. 2006 by the
Pittsburgh Presbytery that declared (among other things) that all
ordination requirements in the Book of Order shall be treated
as essentials for ordination and that no exceptions to the sexuality
standard in G-6.0106b would be permitted. The Synod PJC relied almost
entirely on the PUP “Authoritative Interpretation” (hereafter: A.I.)
for its ruling.
-
On Jan. 15,
2008, the San Francisco Presbytery certified Lisa Larges, a
self-avowed practicing lesbian, as ready for examination to become a
minister of Word and Sacrament and did so on the basis of the 2006 PUP
A.I. Larges had asked the presbytery to permit a departure from the
Book of Order’s requirement in G-6.0106b of “fidelity in marriage
between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.” A majority of
the presbytery concurred that the departure was not a departure from
an “essential of Reformed faith and polity.”
-
On Jan. 26,
2008, the Twin Cities Area Presbytery in Minnesota similarly voted to
“restore to exercise of ordained office” Dr. Paul Capetz, another
self-avowed, homosexually active person. Capetz was released from the
exercise of ordained office in 2000 per his request because he could
not comply with the provisions of G-6.0106b. Capetz sought
reinstatement after the 2006 General Assembly approval of the PUP A.I.
The Twin Cities Area Presbytery determined that his departure from
G-6.0106b to be “non-essential.”
If an “essential” can
be determined only on a case by case basis, as the court of the Synod of
the Trinity ruled in agreement with the PUP Rationale for its
“Authoritative Interpretation,” then there can be no churchwide
essentials for ordination. None. Zero. A presbytery could not
“predetermine” even that believing in Christ as Savior and Lord is an
essential ordination standard. The ordaining body would have to revisit
the question of whether this is an essential at each and every
ordination examination. Presumably, the PJC of the Synod of the Trinity
believes, along with the proponents of the PUP A.I. generally, that
there may be some positive qualities possessed by a candidate that could
offset the failure to affirm Christ as Savior and Lord. Based on the
synod ruling, an ordaining body could not “predetermine” even that
engaging in active, unrepentant adultery, incest, or polyamory
(multiple-partner relations) is a necessary bar to ordination.
Determinations would have to be made on a case-by-case basis because,
goodness knows, a candidate may have other redeeming qualities that make
him or her suitable for ordained office. This is insane. And it is the
direct result of the 2006 PUP “Authoritative Interpretation.”
The idea that there are
no clear indicators anywhere in the Book of Order
regarding what is essential for ordination is manifestly absurd. It is
true that G-6.0108b does say that: “The decision as to whether a person
has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity . . .
ultimately becomes the responsibility of the governing body in which he
or she serves.” However, just as clearly, 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.
What are some of these
clear indicators in the Book of Order? Here are three obvious
ones.
-
When a particular ordination
standard is explicitly singled out from amongst other standards,
it is an obvious “essential of Reformed faith and polity” for ordained
officers. Otherwise, there would be no
point to singling out a given standard. Why single out the standard to
stress the necessity of compliance if the intent were only to relegate
the standard to the level of other potentially nonessential standards?
It doesn’t make any sense. One such standard is the sexuality standard
in G-6.0106b, for it explicitly 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.”
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. (G-6.0106b; emphases added)
And yet, despite the obvious intent behind this singling
out, the PUP Task Force’s rationale for the 2006 A.I. specifically cites
G-6.0106b as an ordination standard that an ordaining body can
reasonably judge to be nonessential. Non-compliance with the sexuality
standard in G-6.0106b, they say, is not necessarily a bar to ordination:
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)
But why then does the Book of Order single this
standard out from amongst all other standards? No proponent of the 2006
PUP A.I. has, to my knowledge, even bothered to answer this question.
The reason for failing to do so, apparently, is that the answer is
devastating to proponents of the PUP A.I. Clearly, the singling out was
done for the obvious purpose of stressing that “at least this
requirement is essential for ordination.”
If an ordaining body can ignore such a clear literary
indicator of what is essential, then it can ignore any similar indicator
at will, including the two that follow below. 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.
-
When a particular ordination
standard is put in the ordination vow, it is an obvious
“essential of Reformed faith and polity” for ordained officers.
Otherwise there would be no point to making the candidate swear
compliance. One such obvious essential is the first ordination vow
requiring faith in Christ as one’s “Savior” and “Lord of all”
(W-4.4003). The fact that the Book of Order specifies that
candidates for ordination must swear compliance to this belief
establishes the essential character of the requirement (not to mention
that it is the first vow). To argue that the Book of Order
does not, in predetermined fashion, regard such faith as essential
for ordained officers, simply because the word “essential” is not
explicitly used in the text, is to engage in perverse,
hyper-literalistic, and duplicitous reasoning.
-
When a particular ordination
standard is repeated often in diverse contexts, it is an
obvious “essential of Reformed faith and polity” for ordained
officers. Again, there is no point to
repeating over and over a given ordination standard in diverse
contexts unless the intent is to establish the requirement as
essential. One such requirement is the necessity of accepting women’s
ordination. The affirmation of women’s ordination is repeated in
diverse contexts throughout the Form of Government of the Book of
Order. G-6.0105 makes clear that “both men and women shall
be eligible to hold church.” 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.” 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” (c). According to G-13.0111a, “Consideration shall be
given to the nomination of equal numbers of ministers (both women and
men).” G-1.0100b (“Christ calls the church into being”) refers to
Christ “exercising his authority by the ministry of women and men.”
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.”
It doesn’t matter whether an ordaining body wants to
regard affirmation of women’s ordination as essential or not. The
Constitution itself plainly indicates that it is essential through these
constant repetitions in diverse contexts, even to the point of setting
up committees to insure its proper implementation. An ordaining body
that rules that such an affirmation is not constitutionally
essential is acting in a perverse and unreasonable manner, if not out of
great ignorance.
Of course, nothing
“Einsteinian” has been said above. That is the point. These are clear
and obvious indicators in the Book of Order regarding essentials
in the Book of Order. No ordaining body has a right to ignore
such indicators of what is essential. While not an exhaustive list,
these three indicators—explicitly singling out a standard for compliance
from amongst all other standards, enshrining a standard in an ordination
vow, and repeatedly citing a standard in diverse contexts—do have great
relevance for current debates in the recent history of the PCUSA.
Inasmuch as the spin
given by 2006 A.I. 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.
Having made the case for at least some clear indicators
within the Book of Order as to which ordination standards are
essential, there remains only the necessity of answering possible
objections to this construal of the Constitution of the PCUSA.
(1) Review for compliance is no safeguard for
judicial activism. Someone might counter that the 2006 General
Assembly added to the Task Force’s A.I. a safeguard; namely, that higher
governing bodies may review “whether the examination and ordination and
installation decision comply with the constitution of the PCUSA.” 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. This is evident enough from the
recent decision of the PJC of the Synod of the Trinity (cited above).
(2)
Going beyond the use of mandatory “shall” language to even more
obvious indicators. Someone might contend that not all
“requirements” or practices associated with mandatory “shall” language
are essential; and, consequently, that failure to comply with the
“mandatory” sexual “requirement” in G-6.0106b is not necessarily a bar
to ordination. In my view, 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.
Nevertheless, appeal to high-frequency use of “shall” language in the
Book of Order is beside the point here. We can all agree that the
implicit literary force and effect of explicitly 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 affirmation of women in ministry).
(3) Not presuming
universal clarity or instituting a detailed litmus test of orthodoxy but
rather restoring sanity to the ordination process. Some may fear
that the mention of “clear indicators in the Book of Order
regarding what is essential” establishes too much certitude in
interpreting texts or creates a detailed litmus text of orthodoxy. Such
a fear would be misplaced. The purpose of
citing three clear indicators of essential ordination standards in the
Book of Order 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.
Put differently, the purpose of acknowledging a few clear indicators 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
singling out a given ordination requirement from amongst all others,
placing it in the context of an ordination vow, or citing it repeatedly
in diverse contexts create an implicit contract of meaning with
reasonable readers interpreting texts reasonably and contextually.
Not to draw the obvious conclusion that such contexts
establish certain ordination requirements as essential is to
violate that contract of meaning and engender distrust and cynicism
regarding process. The unhealthy 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, amending, or adjudicating by
means of the Book of Order except as an exercise of raw,
arbitrary power. And then there would be no point to the existence of
the PCUSA as a denominational entity.
In short, there is nothing radical about what I am
proposing here. This construal 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 PUP
“Authoritative Interpretation” of G-6.0108b. To do otherwise, to pretend
that the Book of Order gives no clear indication anywhere
that any particular standard is essential for ordination, is to
engage in nothing less than constitutional duplicity and theological
insanity. In the midst of our disagreements we must, at the very least,
strive for reasonableness and honesty, even if reasonableness and
honesty undermine readings favorable to our predetermined ideological
stance.