 | Cherokee Presbytery Serving 41 Churches in Northwest Georgia 183 West Main St. Suite A, Cartersville, GA 30120 770.382.6280 - 770.382.7804 (fax) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Presbytery of Cherokee overtures the 218th General Assembly (2008) of the PC(USA) to approve the following authoritative interpretation of subsection G-6.0108 of the Book of Order:
A governing body is not permitted to ordain or install a candidate for deacon, elder, or minister of the Word and Sacrament after determining that the candidate has departed, without repentance, from the standards for ordination expressly provided in the Book of Order. Such unrepentant departure is a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed polity, and is a negative answer to the required constitutional question: Will you be governed by our church's polity? 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.
RATIONALE:
Summary
The 217th General Assembly (2006) approved, with amendment, an authoritative interpretation (AI) of G-6.0108 recommended in the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church. The AI sets forth the manner in which the church establishes ordination standards and the process that governing bodies are to follow in applying those standards. While the AI mentions departures from "essentials of faith and polity," the absence of specificity regarding compliance with Book of Order requirements leaves considerable confusion. Particularly, the AI is not clear as to whether a governing body may ordain or install a candidate who has departed, without repentance, from standards for ordination expressly provided in the Book of Order.
This lack of clarity has created confusion and has led many sessions and presbyteries to adopt resolutions that set their own policies, so further interpretation is needed. The AI proposed in this overture clarifies the question in a manner that is consistent with the Book of Order, with previous authoritative interpretations, and with rulings of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission.
The contrary interpretation – that a governing body may ordain or install such a candidate – is not consistent with those authorities, and requires that certain express provisions of the Book of Order be ignored. It would be a de facto amendment to, rather than an interpretation of, the Book of Order, and would require approval of the presbyteries to be valid.
These summary statements are developed more fully, with references, below.
Lack of clarity in the 2006 AI
The 2006 AI is not clear as to whether ordaining bodies can override the plain meaning of provisions of the Book of Order and judicial directives that require compliance with expressed standards 1 for ordination. While the task force's supporting rationale states that an ordaining body can ordain a candidate not compliant with G-6.0106b [lines 1222-30], the AI itself makes no such explicit statement. The Office of the General Assembly has issued Constitutional Musing #11 and Advisory Opinion #18 to clarify the matter, but they fail to do so, in large part because CM #11 contradicts portions of AO #18.
Consistency of the proposed AI with the church's constitution
Sections G-1.0300, G-1.0400, and G-4.0300 set forth the historic basic principles of church government and polity. Four of these principles, together with express provisions of the Book of Order that are based on them, establish church polity related to standards for ordination. They are:
The church's right to establish ordination standards. In its ruling on the Londonderry case, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission stated that G-1.0302 explicitly gives the church the right to make and enforce qualifications for ordination established by the whole church.2 Several subsections of the Book of Order establish specific requirements for ordination. Among them are those relating to training and education [G-14.0240, G-14.0450], successful completion of an examination [G-14.0240, G-14.0482], affirmative response to the constitutional questions [G-14.0300, G-14.0490, W-4.4000], personal conduct [G-6.0106b], and adherence to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity [G-6.0108a]. As provisions of the Book of Order, these requirements are standards adopted by the whole church.
The church's unity. The ordination or installation of an elder, deacon, or minister of the Word and Sacrament by an appropriate governing body is an act of the whole church [G-1.0400, G-9.0103, G-14.0480]. With power to act on behalf of the whole church, a governing body must faithfully apply the ordination standards adopted by the whole church. The failure of governing bodies to do so, without prompt correction by higher governing bodies, would seriously damage the church's unity and diminish the authority of the church's constitution.
The review of governing bodies' actions. Ordination decisions and all other actions of a governing body are subject to review by the next higher governing body [G-4.0301f, G-9.0103].
The freedom of conscience. The first sentence of paragraph 6.109 of The Book of Confessions (Westminster Confession) proclaims freedom of conscience "in matters of faith or worship." This sentence is the foundation of the principle that the Book of Order reaffirms in G-1.0301a. But there are limits placed on this freedom in both The Book of Confessions and the Book of Order.
In The Book of Confessions, immediately following paragraph 6.109, is the warning: "They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty." Freedom of conscience is not intended to be a dispensation to continue sinful practices.
In the Book of Order, G-6.0108 limits freedom of conscience by providing that it is to be maintained unless there is: (1) a serious departure from "the essentials of Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government," (2) an infringement on the rights and views of others, or (3) an obstruction of the constitutional governance of the church. The proposed AI is consistent with these limitations, as explained below.
(1) In general, the Form of Government expresses essentials of Reformed polity by establishing requirements or mandates and, in relation to ordination, by adopting ordination standards. Therefore, a candidate's declaration of a scruple with respect to an ordination standard expressed in the Book of Order and his or her unrepentant failure to comply with it would be a serious departure from the essentials.
(2) An ordination standard adopted by the whole church necessarily represents the views of many Presbyterians. The ordination of a candidate who deliberately and without repentance refuses to comply with such a standard would be a clear infringement of the rights and views of many others.
(3) The ordination of a candidate who deliberately and without repentance refuses to comply with an ordination standard adopted by the whole church would be an obstruction of the constitutional governance of the church because the ordaining body would have ignored a requirement of the Book of Order. It also would indicate that the candidate could not honestly give an affirmative answer to the required constitutional question: Will you be governed by our church's polity?
It should be noted that paragraph c of the 2006 AI, which describes how governing bodies are to apply ordination standards, calls for them only to make a determination relative to (1) above. It does not include the determinations relative to (2) and (3), which are clearly required by G-6.0108a. This is another reason that further interpretation is needed.
In the Londonderry ruling, the GAPJC rejected an assertion that G-1.0301a and G-6.0108 affirm freedom of conscience with respect to matters addressed by G-6.0106b. 3 The proposed AI is consistent with that ruling.
The interpretation that a governing body may ordain or install a candidate who has departed, without repentance, from standards for ordination expressly provided in the Book of Order would permit inconsistent application of standards that could be unfair to some candidates. One governing body may deny ordination to a candidate because it determines a particular manner-of-life practice of the candidate to be a departure from the essentials of Reformed polity, while another governing body may ordain a candidate who engages in that same practice. The question of whether a candidate's engaging in a particular practice is a departure from the essentials should apply to that practice, not to the candidate. Consistent application of the standards adopted by the whole church is required to assure fairness to all candidates.
This interpretation, which is contrary to the proposed AI, also would create a conflict between two parts of the Book of Order, the Form of Government and the Rules of Discipline. A candidate's unrepentant declaration that his or her personal conduct does not comply with a manner-of-life mandate of the Form of Government is an admission of guilt of an offense. An offense is defined in the Rules of Discipline [D-2.0203b] as an act contrary to the Scriptures or the church's constitution; it does not have to be a departure from the essentials of Reformed polity. If the ordaining body determines that the conduct is not a departure from the essentials and ordains the candidate, the candidate would be subject to censure and the ordaining body would be subject to correction by a higher body for failing to initiate disciplinary action. It should be noted that, in the Londonderry ruling, the GAPJC stated that tensions and ambiguities between provisions of the church's constitution are to be resolved "in such a way as to give effect to all provisions. It is not within the power of any governing body or judicial commission to declare a properly adopted provision of the Constitution to be invalid." 4
1 The word "standard" can have several meanings. In this interpretation, "standard" means "requirement." (See World Book Dictionary, 2003, definition 2, and American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Ed., 2000, definition 6b.) That "requirement" is the proper meaning in this context is clearly shown by the text of the second sentence of G-6.0106b, the focus of this debate. It begins: "Among these standards is the requirement to live either…." [Emphasis added.] 2 Minutes of the 213th General Assembly (2001), part 1, page 579, paragraph 12.1045. 3 Ibid, page 578, paragraph 12.1043. 4 Ibid, page 578, paragraph 12.1044.
For the Ordination Standards Overture
Contents
This is relevant background information that will be useful to any one making a detailed study of the proposed overture from Cherokee Presbytery to the General Assembly that requests further interpretation of Book of Order subsection G-6.0108.
On pages 1 and 2 is a list of key events in the thirty-year-old debate about whether the church should ordain those who engage in homosexual activity. These actions, rulings, and advisory opinions encompass much more than that particular question; they include the entire range of activity that our confessions call sin. They also involve the extent to which the Book of Order in fact governs church polity, and how it is to be interpreted. But these events were initiated by those who wanted the church to permit such ordinations, or in reaction to those initiatives. One especially significant point is that by 2001, the year in which the PUP Task Force was established, the position of the Church on the ordination of self-acknowledged, practicing homosexuals was well-established and perfectly clear.
On page 3 are relevant excerpts from the Book of Order.
On page 4 is the authoritative interpretation (AI) approved by the 217th General Assembly (2006). It is as recommended by the PUP Task Force except for an amendment to paragraph d, which relates to the review of ordination decisions by higher governing bodies. There is also an excerpt from the Task Force's rationale in support of the recommendation.
On page 5 are answers to questions likely to be raised about the proposed overture.
Key events in the debate about ordaining practicing homosexuals
1978 – The UPCUSA adopted a policy statement with definitive guidance "that unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination set forth in the Form of Government."
1979 – The PCUS (Southern) adopted a similar statement.
1983 – The UPCUSA and PCUS churches united, and the Articles of Agreement provided that the policy statements of the two predecessor general assemblies shall remain in effect until modified or rescinded by action of a PC(USA) general assembly.
1985 – In the Blasdell case, the GAPJC ruled that the policy statements of 1978 and1979 became AI's in the PC(USA) and it was unconstitutional to ordain self-affirming, practicing homosexuals.
1991 – The General Assembly declined to adopt the report of a committee that recommended radical change in the church's position in several areas of sexuality, and dismissed the committee.
1993 – The General Assembly adopted an AI confirming that the 1978 and 1979 statements carry the weight of authoritative interpretations. It further stated, "Current constitutional law in the Presbyterian Church, (U. S. A.) is that self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons may not be ordained as ministers of the Word and Sacrament, elders, or deacons."
1996 – The ACC defined several options for the General Assembly. The option to prohibit the ordination of self-acknowledged, practicing homosexuals was to adopt an amendment to the Book of Order like the current G-6.0106b. The General Assembly chose this option and the presbyteries approved it 97/74/1.
1997 – The General Assembly approved an amendment to the Book of Order to delete the newly passed G-6.0106b and replace it with less explicit text. The presbyteries rejected the amendment.
1999 – The current Moderator, Joan Gray, and Joyce Tucker wrote in Presbyterian Polity for Church Officers: "In mid-1998 the constitution of the PCUSA is clear as to its sexual standard for its officers. G-6.0106b is in the Form of Government."
2001 –In the Londonderry case, the GAPJC rejected an assertion that the freedom of conscience provisions of G-6.0108 apply to G-6.0106b. It explained, "It is not within the power of any governing body or judicial commission to declare a properly adopted provision of the Constitution to be invalid. The only appropriate avenue to change or remove a provision of the Constitution is through the process for amendment provided within the Constitution itself."
2001 – The ACC advised: "The position of the Church on ordination cannot be changed by a General Assembly authoritative interpretation alone."
2001 – The General Assembly (1) voted to amend the Constitution by deleting G-6.0106b and adding a provision that would permit the ordaining body to determine the suitability for office, "guided by scriptural and constitutional standards," and (2) approved, subject to the approval of the amendment, an AI declaring that the 1978 and 1979 policy statements and subsequent affirmations of them would have "no further force or effect." In 2002, the presbyteries rejected these proposals 125/46/1.
2001 – The General Assembly established the Peace, Unity, and Purity Task Force to study Christology, biblical authority and interpretation, ordination standards, and power.
2005 – The PUP Task Force issued its report, recommending that the General Assembly approve an AI that appears to have the same effect as the Book of Order amendment that was rejected in 2002.
2006 – The ACC advised that the General Assembly could approve the AI "if it chooses." It stated that its contrary advice given in 2001 "was not as precise as it should have been," but made no reference to the contrary advice it gave in 1996. The GA approved the AI, which appears to permit governing bodies to ordain candidates whose conduct does not comply with G-6.0106b.
Definitions
The Constitution of the PC(USA) consists of The Book of Confessions and the Book of Order, which has three parts: Form of Government, Directory for Worship, and Rules of Discipline.
There is a Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) for each governing body above the session. On behalf of the governing body that elects it, a judicial commission receives, considers, and rules on complaints. PJC rulings are subject to review by the PJC's of higher governing bodies.
The Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC): (1) advises the General Assembly on all questions requiring an interpretation of the Book of Order, other than those pending before the GAPJC, and (2) examines all proposed amendments to the Book of Order for clarity of language and for compatibility with other provisions of the Constitution.
An authoritative interpretation (AI) is an interpretation by a General Assembly of the Book of Order that is binding on the governing bodies of the church when rendered after receiving advice from the ACC or through a decision of the General Assembly PJC. Excerpts from the Book of Order
Preface In this Book of Order (1) SHALL and IS TO BE/ARE TO BE signify practice that is mandated, (2) SHOULD signifies practice that is strongly recommended, (3) IS APPROPRIATE signifies practice that is commended as suitable, (4) MAY signifies practice that is permissible but not required.
G-6.0106 a. To those called to exercise special functions in the church —deacons, elders, and ministers of the Word and Sacrament—God gives suitable gifts for their various duties. In addition to possessing the necessary gifts and abilities, natural and acquired, those who undertake particular ministries should be persons of strong faith, dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Their manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world. They must have the approval of God’s people and the concurring judgment of a governing body of the church.
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.
G-6.0108 a. It is necessary to the integrity and health of the church that the persons who serve in it as officers shall adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government. So far as may be possible without serious departure from these standards, without infringing on the rights and views of others, and without obstructing the constitutional governance of the church, freedom of conscience with respect to the interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained.
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.
D-2.0203 A disciplinary case is one in which a church member or officer may be censured for an offense.
b. An offense is any act or omission by a member or officer of the church that is contrary to the Scriptures or the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108, Adopted by the 217th General Assembly (2006)
a. The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government of the Book of Order set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation. b. These standards are determined by the whole church, after the careful study of Scripture and theology, solely by the constitutional process of approval by the General Assembly with the approval of the presbyteries. These standards may be interpreted by the General Assembly and its Permanent Judicial Commission. c. Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards to those elected to office. These determinations include: (1) Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office, (2) Whether any departure 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. d. Whether the examination and ordination and installation decision comply with the constitution of the PCUSA, and whether the ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing bodies. e. All parties should endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another’s decisions, according the presumption of wisdom to ordaining/installing bodies in examining candidates and to the General Assembly, with presbyteries’ approval, in setting standards.
Excerpts from the PUP Task Force's rationale, Lines 1222-30
If an ordaining or installing body determines that an officer-elect has departed from G-6.0106b, a manner-of-life standard, the ordaining/installing body must then determine whether this departure violates essentials of faith or polity. If so, the candidate may not be ordained. If the departure is judged not to violate the essentials of Reformed faith and polity, after the ordaining/installing body has weighed the departure in the full context of a candidate's statement of faith and manner of life, then there is no barrier to ordination (though there also is no requirement that the person be ordained).
Answers to likely questions
Q. What will approval of the proposed AI accomplish?
A. It will restore the clarity in church law relative to manner-of-life ordination standards that existed prior to the action of the 217th General Assembly (2006). The plain, unambiguous text of the Book of Order, the AI's approved by previous assemblies, the rulings of the GAPJC, and the advice given on several occasions by the ACC all were clear in maintaining that candidates can not be ordained or installed unless their conduct complies with the manner-of-life mandates of the Book of Order.
Q. How do Constitutional Musing #11 and Advisory Opinion #18 fail to clarify the AI approved by the 217th General Assembly (2006)?
A1. Advisory Opinion #18, as does the PUP Task Force's rationale, makes statements that are inherently contradictory. For example, it says that the AI affirms the historical practice for local bodies to determine what the ordination standards require and apply them on a case-by-case basis. Then it says that an ordaining body can not "set aside national constitutional standards; they are binding upon all ordaining bodies." Given that the focus of this debate is the second sentence of G.6.0106b, which says that one of the standards is the "chastity and fidelity" requirement, AO#18 is not clear about whether failure to comply with that requirement is a bar to ordination.
A2. The two papers contradict each other. AO #18 generally seems to say that an ordaining body may ordain a candidate whose conduct does not comply with a constitutional standard if the body determines that the departure from the standard is not a departure from the essentials. CM #11 says, in answer to Question 6, that a person who declares a scruple on a mandatory provision must be willing to comply with the provision in order to be ordained.
A3. Both papers assert that the AI does not overturn or override any previous AI. If that is true, the 1993 AI stands, the issue is settled, and all the other discussion is superfluous.
Q. Since the underlying question in this debate is whether self-acknowledged, practicing homosexuals can be ordained, why does the rationale of the proposed AI not discuss the Biblical, moral, scientific, and ethical principles that relate to that question?
A. If the PUP Task Force and the General Assembly had proposed a Book of Order amendment in order to change church polity to allow such ordinations – the direct and straightforward approach – those principles would be relevant and discussion of them would be in order. But the task force and General Assembly chose to change church polity by claiming that the Book of Order now permits such ordinations. That is, they interpreted the Book of Order in that manner. The proposed AI deals only with the inadequacies of that interpretation.
3:00 - 4:00 PM Cherokee Retreat Center
v For clergy and elders who have not had the opportunity to participate in the Visioning process… v Come and give the Vision Team information which help guide them as they reflect on the future of Cherokee Presbytery.
--OR—
Ø Confused about what an “AI” is … Ø Don’t understand how to send an Overture to GA … Ø Think that the General Assembly needs to “fix” the PUP report … Ø Want to hear more about the overture before you vote at the Presbytery meeting … Ø Don’t like to talk on the floor of presbytery, but want to express your opinion … Ø Can’t figure out what a “scruple” is … Ø This workshop is for you!
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
