The Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity is recommending the General Assembly approve an authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 that claims merely to clarify what has long been the historical position of the Presbyterian Church: that ordaining governing bodies have the final say on decisions of ordination. It once was common that presbyteries would allow candidates for ordination to declare their disagreements (“scruples”) with the confessional standards of the church, and then determine if they would ordain the candidate nonetheless (lines 724-726). The recommended authoritative interpretation would revive this historic tradition (lines 1138-1179), encouraging governing bodies to hear the scruples of candidates and decide whether the stated scruples were sufficiently beyond the pale of our tradition to prohibit ordination.
I oppose it for two reasons: If it is approved, it will further erode the level of trust in our church; and it will be a top-down decision of a matter that the presbyteries have refused to allow.
I believe the proposed Authoritative Interpretation will effectively establish “local option” as the rule for matters of ordination. My conclusion is based on paragraph d, which reads:
d. 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. (lines 1066-1067)
The problem this paragraph raises is very technical but is something any competent attorney would pick up. The difficulty rests in the structure of the Authoritative Interpretation:
“¢ Paragraph (a) (line 1051) asserts the standards are set out in the Book of Order and Confessions;
“¢ Paragraph (b) (line 1053) states these standards are set by the whole church using the procedures for amending the Constitution;
“¢ Paragraph (c) (line 1057) states that ordaining and governing bodies have the responsibility for determining if those standards have been met, and it enumerates this responsibility in two clauses begun by “whether.”
“(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.” (lines 1060-1065)
“¢ Then comes paragraph (d), also phrased in a “whether” clause, which assigns the responsibility for testing the matter to judicial review.
“¢ Paragraph (e) is an appeal to governing bodies to honor each other’s decisions.
The judicial review in paragraph (d) is independent of the standards found in the “whether” clauses of paragraph (c), because paragraph (d) establishes a standard of review on appeal. It limits the considerations of a reviewing permanent judicial commission to this question: Did the governing body conduct its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in the process of reaching its decision?
If, for example, a person states he or she has scruples about ordination of women or fidelity in marriage, and the governing body decides to allow the scruple after reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately considering the matter, then it has met the criteria set out in Paragraph (d). One cannot challenge the act on the grounds that the scruple violated Constitutional standards, because the very notion of a scruple involves setting aside a Constitutional standard.
How a PJC would receive this argument is, of course, impossible to predict. The argument, however, is rational and it comes from the wording of the Authoritative Interpretation itself. A PJC would face the dilemma of ignoring the clear wording of the Authoritative Interpretation if it wants to overturn a decision to ordain or install, or accepting the argument if it is shown that the governing body has properly done its deliberative work.
Under the scenario here described, the decision in each case would have to be “narrowly construed,” since it is so fact-specific. That is, each case would have to be reviewed in the light of the specific actions taken by the governing body. One can predict that over time, parties would become adept at laying out sufficient facts in the minutes to show the governing body had properly considered and decided the matter pursuant to Paragraph (d).
If it is true, as I argue here, that the effect of the proposed Authoritative Interpretation will be to establish local option, then some arguments made in favor of it are disingenuous at best. Specifically, I have frequently heard arguments that the Authoritative Interpretation would keep the standards in place and thus not allow the ordination or installation of a non-celibate homosexual person, and that even if a governing body were to do it, it would be decided by judicial review. If the proponents are successful in persuading the General Assembly commissioners that the Authoritative Interpretation will not permit local option, and it turns out to be false, a difficulty the Task Force has sought to resolve will certainly be made worse: The perceived breach of trust will be a new source of contention within our church.
Beyond the breach of trust is the process problem. On two occasions the General Assembly has tried to amend the standards set out in G-6.0106b, and each time the presbyteries have refused to ratify. Since an authoritative interpretation does not require the approval of the presbyteries, the effect will be to force a change on the church from the top. This kind of top-down decision making violates a core value of our polity and likely will enrage some who oppose the decision.
I do not oppose the proposed Authoritative Interpretation because it would probably allow local option, since I have long held and publicly stated my belief that our categorical prohibition of the ordination and installation of non-celibate homosexual persons is wrong. My opposition is grounded on my conclusion that local option is the likely outcome of the Authoritative Interpretation proposed, that the commissioners of the GA will have been persuaded by arguments that turn out to be false, and that our polity will be so violated by this top-down decision that we may never recover from it.
While the General Assembly did not assign the Task Force the specific task of resolving the continuing question of the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons, it was the elephant in the committee room. It is an intractable problem, so where it could not agree on the substance, the Task Force did agree on process. The proposed Authoritative Interpretation is a process answer to a theological disagreement, the kind of resolution any trained mediator will recognize. In the face of immense difficulty, they creatively turned their own experience into a model. I applaud their extraordinary work and excellent report, and I sympathize with their attempt to resolve this major issue.
Unfortunately, sometimes the wrong solution can make a problem worse, and I believe this is one of those cases.
Edward H. Koster is the stated clerk of the Presbytery of Detroit and practices law in Ann Arbor, Mich.
