The Assembly committee on Church Orders and Ministry voted 35-30 to forward to the full Assembly an overture from Western Reserve Presbytery that states: “In carrying out their responsibilities under the Constitution to determine fitness for office, sessions and presbyteries are not bound by statements of the General Assembly and its commissions, regarding ordained service by homosexual persons, that predate the adoption of G-6.0106b.
That rule for ordination was approved by the 1996 General Assemblly and officially adopted by church in 1997.
The authoritative interpretations which would no longer be in force date back to 1978 and 1979 in the PC(USA)’s predecessor denominations. The statements — first called “definitive guidance” — were given greater power through Assembly action in 1993. They say, in part, that “homosexuality is not God’s wish for humanity” and that “for the church to ordain a self-affirming, practicing homosexual person to ministry would be to act in contradiction to its charter and calling in Scripture, setting in motion both within the church and society serious contradictions to the will of Christ.”
Tuesday’s vote followed three hours of civil debate. Like last year at the 215th General Assembly in Denver, this committee was closely divided on the issue. And during consideration of five overtures on the ordination issue, it was moved that the whole matter be answered with a call to prayer and discernment across the church — the 215th Assembly’s eventual action on a recommendation to delete G-6.0106b.
This time, however, the committee rejected — narrowly — that motion and instead approved the recommendation to replace the existing authoritative interpretations. Unlike a constitutional amendment, this action, if approved by the whole Assembly, does not require approval by the presbyteries. Also, it can be overturned by a subsequent interpretation by a later Assembly or the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission during the course of deciding a case.
The other four overtures would be answered by adoption of the Western Reserve overture if the full Assembly approves Tuesday’s recommendation.
Opponents found little solace in the fact that G-6.0106b is not challenged by the recommended action, and spoke strongly for the preservation of the authoritative interpretations.
The Advisory Committee on the Constitution issued a statement which said, in part, “the removal of these statements would allow the language of the Constitution itself to guide the church.”
Those opposing the proposed action said it will lead to “local option,” in that presbyteries and sessions will ordain persons using their own interpretations of G-6.0106b.
Ordaining bodies would use G-6.0106b “as they understand it,” said Phyllis Spielmann, an elder from Los Ranchos Presbytery who opposed the motion. “They would interpret it as they see fit. … It will mean more chaos and more division.”
Countering that argument was minister commissioner Bruce Buchanan of Grace Presbytery. “I think we can trust our presbyteries to make the right decisions.” He noted that in 1983 at the time of reunion there was “a lot of fear about receiving ministers from the other denominations,” but the presbyteries “filled the gap and served as adequate gatekeepers.”
Opponents also argued that nothing should be done about the sensitive issue until the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity in the PC(USA) reports in September 2005. John Gillespie, an elder from Olympia Presbytery, said that Theological Task Force vice moderator Jenny Stoner had told the committee that if it approved one of the five overtures, it would complicate the work of the task force. Jim Sirbaugh, a minister from National Capital Presbytery, replied that what Stoner actually said was that any action that had to go through the presbyteries would have that effect — and writing a new authoritative interpretation does not need presbytery approval.
Jennfer Burns Lewis, the minister from Chicago Presbytery who made the successful motion, said it represents “a compromise, not completely acceptable to those who want full inclusion, nor to those who depend on the Authoritative Interpretations … Nothing in this asks us to ignore or negate Scripture. It is simply a way to move the church forward.”
A minority report is expected when the committee’s actions are reported on the floor of the full Assembly later this week. And there the debate will continue. 
