The following story of how they chose to report the Anaconda statement of conscience and my role as co-pastor and general presbyter is an example of their battle mentality.
As co-pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Anaconda, Mont., I helped our session develop a statement of conscience related to G-6.0106b and the examination process for elders and deacons. The session was concerned about interpretations of G-6.0106b that categorically excluded certain persons from consideration for ordination. The session believed that any elder-elect or deacon-elect should be examined as an individual based on his/her relationship with Jesus Christ. The discernment process of the session would draw from the totality of our Constitution.
This statement of conscience by a governing body was sent to the next highest governing body, the Presbytery of Yellowstone. In reaction to the Anaconda statement of conscience, the presbytery wrote a letter to the session stating the presbytery’s concern as to whether the session would uphold our Constitution. A pastoral committee of two was sent by the presbytery to visit with the session.
In response to the presbytery letter and pastoral committee, the Anaconda Session sent a letter assuring the presbytery of its intention to uphold the Constitution. The session also withdrew its statement of conscience and drafted a new one that more clearly articulated the session’s position and its commitment to the Constitution. The Anaconda Session declaration is very simple at heart. No person will be categorically excluded from consideration for ordination during the examination process. This is in conformity with the 1998 G.A. authoritative interpretation of G-6.0106b and the GAPJC ruling in Wier v. Second Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale.
The Anaconda statement of conscience does not indicate who it would or would not ordain. It is simply a statement about the examination process. Thus, not only is the Anaconda statement constitutional, any session that did not follow the heart of the declaration (in other words, categorically excluded persons), would, in fact, be violating our Constitution.
The Presbyterian Layman chose to report on the Anaconda statement of conscience with the following headline: Presbytery leader-pastor calls for defying the Constitution. The article reported, the presbytery’s executive has signed a resolution saying the church will not abide by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The Anaconda statement was characterized by the article as constitutional defiance and the Layman inserted the words practicing homosexuals and adulterers into an excerpt from the statement, implying that the session would ordain adulterers.
The Layman never contacted any officers of Yellowstone Presbytery to verify the accuracy of their article, and never contacted anyone from the Anaconda church for a response to the charges. As a result of the article, Paul Rolf Jensen, the infamous Virginia lawyer, filed accusations against me. According to the charges, I had renounced my ordination vows and encouraged others to defy the Constitution. The charges are currently being reviewed by an investigative committee of the presbytery. Also, a concerted effort to have me immediately fired from my General Presbyter position arose from the Layman article. The only reason given by those who wanted me fired was that I had defied the Constitution.
At the May meeting of Yellowstone Presbytery, the presbytery was presented with a recommendation by the pastoral committee of two. The premise of the committee recommendation, contained in the preamble, was that the Anaconda Session needed to be brought into compliance with the Constitution. The recommendation was to form an administrative commission to work with the Anaconda Session. The presbytery voted to reject the recommendation. During the discernment process of the presbytery, information on the 1998 G.A. authoritative interpretation and Wier v. Second Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale was presented.
The Layman chose to report on the presbytery action in the following manner: Local church sessions and, in some cases, entire presbyteries continue to ignore the Constitutional standard that requires fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness for officers in the Presbyterian Church (USA). One of the latest to join that league was the Presbytery of Yellowstone, which refused to take action against First Presbyterian Church of Anaconda, Mont., which is in open defiance of G-6.0106b, the ordination standard.
Once again, the Layman sought no comments or responses from presbytery officials or Anaconda Session members. Instead, they chastised the presbytery for taking no action against the Anaconda Session without acknowledging the thoughtful and sometimes painful process used by the presbytery in discerning a decision.
The battle mentality of the Layman and others has led to letters like the following seen on the Layman Web site, April 3, 2002: “Interesting that an Anaconda is also a serpent! Maybe just a coincidence?” The many faithful Presbyterians of the Anaconda church were not amused.
I do not know whether I will have a future in middle-governing body positions thanks to the Layman attacks. But I do know that my commitment to our Constitution will continue, my commitment to helping the session I moderate find its voice will continue, and my commitment to an inclusive church will continue. Statements of conscience should be celebrated, which is why I do not condemn the Confessing Church movement. But apparently the Layman and others have chosen to ignore the content of statements like that of the Anaconda Session and immediately condemn them. The truth is simple: The Anaconda statement of conscience is constitutional. Hopefully we can find enough peace among us to once again respect the theological diversity of our denomination.
Posted June 19, 2002
Paul Peterson is general presbyter, Yellowstone Presbytery, and co-pastor, First church, Anaconda, Mont.
Send your comment on this viewpoint to The Outlook. Please give your hometown.
