Pockets of smoke have puffed up around the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). But befuddled are we who ask, “Is it really smoke? Is there really a fire? Is it toxic?” and “How do we put it out?”
What smoke is it? Puffs are rising in the form of the ordination of sexually active, unmarried individuals. Some puffs are rising in the form of church sessions declaring their intention to perform such ordinations. Is there fire? Is that fire toxic? What can we do about it?
It falls to the courts to assess how laws should apply in specific life situations. The recent meeting of the PC(USA)’s General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GA PJC) heard cases of reported smoke sightings and handed down new rulings that don’t really clear the air.
In one case a governing body is allowed to disregard the smoke. In another case, a governing body is scolded for disregarding the smoke.
Sound contradictory to you?
In the former case, while being examined before Redwoods Presbytery, ordination-candidate Katie Morrison acknowledged her lesbian orientation, but when asked if she would comply with G-6.0106b (the fidelity-chastity ordination requirements), Morrison replied, “Yes, I intend to comply with G-6.0106b.” No further questions followed, so the ordination proceeded apace. A legal challenge was filed, claiming that the presbytery failed to examine the candidate adequately. The synod PJC, and later the GA PJC, determined that there was insufficient basis for further examination. They added that further questioning was not required, unless a questioner had credible information that indicates ordination-disqualifying behavior. (She did provide that information in a newspaper interview after the ordination, but that was not presented as evidence in the legal case.)
In the latter case, while being examined before the session of West End church, Albany, N.Y., Scott Edwards acknowledged that he was a gay man in a 15-year relationship. The session installed him onto the session the following morning. Another elder, Daniel McKittrick, filed a complaint against the session. The GA PJC ruled that McKittrick’s case had merit, and that the session must stand trial before the presbytery’s permanent judicial commission.
So, the PJC appears to be contradicting itself, right? Perhaps it is. Many have seen the Redwoods ruling as a mess. But there may be some hint of redeeming quality to be found in the ruling. In an odd way, perhaps the PJC has provided guidance to the church as it aims to discern, address and exercise discipline in such cases.
Make Sure It Is Smoke
The appeal on the Redwoods case failed in part because the reason offered by the appellant alleging shortcomings in the candidate’s examination was Morrison’s acknowledgement that she has a homosexual orientation. Assuming from a previous ruling that they were to deal with the presbytery’s mistakes and not Morrison’s sin, they made no reference to her public statements that suggest sexual activity. The court determined that her acknowledgement of orientation is no more a confession than any other person’s acknowledgement of sinful inclinations, per the Reformed doctrine of total depravity. Citing the Weir case (GA PJC, April 14, 2002), it said that a person’s declaration of “self-acknowledged” sin “must be plain, palpable, and obvious, and details of this must be alleged in the complaint.” Further, it said that if someone wishes to press a question “that may have extreme consequences to a person’s reputation, career or friendships, a greater degree of pleading specificity is required.” Lacking that, the complaint failed.
In fact, the Redwoods case asserts a clear word about the rights of ordination candidates. Simply to acknowledge one’s orientation toward sin does not justify an ordaining body’s engaging in a fishing expedition. “Guilty till proven innocent” inquisitions are not allowed.
By all means, pressing questions can be asked. One may certainly ask, “Does the phrase ‘chastity in singleness’ mean to you that sexual relations are to be shared only with the person to whom you are married, as defined in our Constitution?” Indeed, the PJC makes it clear that governing bodies are duty-bound to ask penetrating questions.
In the Albany case, the elder-elect acknowledged in the examination not only his homosexual orientation but also his participation in a 15-year partnership with another man. The GA PJC said that that admission did beg for further examination. In addition, the right of a fellow elder to pursue that line of questioning had been abridged, which also was deemed inappropriate.
Hence, if there is definite knowledge of a relationship with an unmarried partner, or if a person acknowledges unrepentant, active sinful behavior, the ordaining body is permitted and even obligated to ask further questions, and possibly to disqualify the candidate.
Be Decent and Orderly
In the Albany case, the PJC chided the session for its rapid movement from examination to installation — less than 18 hours — as a violation of the “presumed trust upon which its power rests. . . . The Presbyterian custom of conducting business ‘decently and in order’ should not be converted into a race in which the swift prevail.”
A striking part of the Albany ruling is the PJC’s suggestion that the actual installation might be overturned. In the past, installations have been treated as irreversible. Erring sessions and presbyteries could be scolded, but the past actions were allowed to stand. This ruling seems to say that, if the presbytery’s PJC should determine that an installation was out of order, the installation “can be set aside.”
This year’s GA could shed some light on this matter as it addresses two overtures (from Redstone and Donegal presbyteries) asking for clarification of the oversight role of higher governing bodies in disciplinary matters.
Further, the Albany case provides guidance to higher governing bodies as they review similar cases. Presbyteries and synods have been loath to engage in administrative reviews of lower governing bodies, due to the looming prospect of “assuming original jurisdiction.” They would have to take over the running of the lower governing body. How many ministers and elders want to serve on the session of a church other than the one in which they worship? Who wants to rule over a neighboring presbytery?
The Albany ruling states that the higher governing body’s review may lead either to assumption of original jurisdiction or to “instruction that the said lower body correct itself.” That second option is less labor-intensive, to be sure!
So Is There Smoke?
Yes, there is smoke. And yes, there is fire. Some of the fire appears to be toxic—constitutionally speaking, at least. But don’t head for the exits yet! In time, the puffs of smoke will reveal their sources, and we will learn just what to do with them.
Jack Haberer is pastor of Clear Lake church, Houston.
Send your comment on this guest editorial to The Outlook. Please give your hometown.