Did the 214th GA really ‘affirm’ compliance with the Constitution?

For the sake of our unity, we might all wish the General Assembly had taken the opportunity to affirm the necessity of compliance with its standards, because a number of other governing bodies are left to deal with public notice of intent to disregard the Constitution. The failure of this Assembly to say that its Constitution matters and that its Judicial Commission needs to be obeyed leaves at least an air of uncertainty — and perhaps even a perception of permissiveness — about disregard of the Constitution. If the situations where intention to disobey the Constitution become actual disobedience, what consequence will follow?

Take, for instance, the situation of the Mount Auburn church, Cincinnati Presbytery. At its July 9 meeting, Cincinnati Presbytery agreed to charge their commission “to assist [Mount Auburn session] in fulfilling its obligation to comply with the Constitution.” The charge speaks of a “range of options.” Is one option to follow the example of the General Assembly and do nothing? Action from the General Assembly would have been most welcome leadership for those who want to see the Constitution upheld.

Take, as another instance, the statements of the following New York churches that they cannot abide by the Constitution. Their statements (which may be found on the Internet at http://www.mlp.org/newdissent.html) remain unaddressed by Hudson River Presbytery. The churches are All Souls’ Parish, Port Chester; the Bedford church; Graham’s United and Hopewell churches, Thompson Ridge; Huguenot Memorial church, Pelham; The Presbyterian church, Mt. Kisco; Nauraushaun church, Pearl River; the Palisades church; South church, Dobbs Ferry; the Stony Point church; and First church, Yorktown Heights.

In addition some 66 churches have signed onto the “Stonecatchers Dissent” which reads in part:
In obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, guided by Scriptures and the legacy left to us by those who went before us our confessions and the Book of Order, and after individual and collective study, consideration, and prayer, we have determined that we cannot agree to abide by the recently passed amendment to G-6.0106 (“amendment B”) without violating our informed conscience, faith, and interpretation of our obligations. (Emphasis added.) See the More Light Presbyterian Web site: http://www.mlp.org/newdissent.html)

Recently, the interim executive of Yellowstone Presbytery explained on The Outlook Web site his position and that of the Anaconda, Mont., church session. He says that they refuse to “exclude persons from ordained service solely because they are in a relationship other than a civil contract between a man and a woman.” This categorical statement itself remains in clear disregard of the Authoritative Interpretation of 1998 which mandates the PC(USA) “to consider the lives and behaviors of candidates as individuals.” Persons in a “relationship” cannot be presumed to be sexually inactive in our 21st-century world; quite the contrary. The larger context of the Anaconda Statement of Conscience makes clear that the intention of the session is knowingly to ordain sexually active persons whose practices do not conform to the fidelity-chastity standard of the church.

The Londonderry decision is an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution which applies to the whole PC(USA), not just to Christ church, Burlington, Vt. Actual, not hypothetical, instances are occurring around the PC(USA) in which various governing bodies are expressing their unwillingness to be governed by our polity and abide by our discipline. Had the General Assembly indeed affirmed the necessity of compliance with the whole Constitution, we might have avoided multiple court cases and confusion about the application of the Constitution in such instances.

So where exactly does the GA’s “disapproval” of the Shenango overture and the minority report leave the church? If only the editor of The Outlook were correct that “the GA affirmed the necessity of compliance with the standards,” a clear expectation for constitutional compliance might have been communicated.

I am reminded by our GA’s action of the tragic outcome that resulted from a friend’s recent medical exam. His doctor found a small lesion on his back and removed it, saying it didn’t seem like something serious. The doctor did not send it in for pathology. Six months later the lesion returned. This time my friend went to a dermatologist only to discover that it was melanoma and that it had spread.

So with the refusal of this GA to take seriously a small outbreak of non-compliance. Will it become more serious? Could it threaten the whole body? I suggest we consider pathology. The current situation may appear to some as a small matter, but preservation of the Constitution and the integrity of the vows our leaders take to uphold it are essential to the health and future of our life together as Presbyterians. It is the role of our governing bodies — and ultimately the General Assembly itself — to ensure that our Constitution does not become a dead letter. It is very likely that the next GA will face this opportunity again next May.