The Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity (PUP) has made seven recommendations to the 217th General Assembly (2006) meeting in Birmingham in June. The report as a whole is brilliant, subtle and balanced, and deserves careful study by commissioners to the General Assembly and by the church at large. The vote of this Assembly on the recommendations will have a profound effect on the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
The heart of these recommendations is number 5, and this analysis and opinion will focus on it. Recommendation 5 proposes an Authoritative Interpretation of section G-6.0108 of the Book of Order. This section states the Church’s understanding of our freedom of conscience within certain bounds. The authoritative interpretation reminds the Church of its Reformed tradition dating back to 1729 that establishes the principle of freedom of conscience within bounds and applies the test of adherence to essentials of Reformed faith and polity to those being examined for ordination as deacons, elders or ministers. In recent decades, the Church has applied the test of essentials primarily to matters of faith. The authoritative interpretation retrieves its use in matters of polity, meaning practice or behavior.
G-6.0108a says, “It is necessary to the integrity and health of the church that the persons who serve in it as officers shall adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government. …” The third ordination vow follows this understanding by asking, “Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do. …”
The essentials test allows persons to have freedom of conscience within bounds. A person being examined for ordination may say they have a principled objection, the old term is “scruple,” to a matter of faith or polity. It is then the responsibility of the ordaining body, either the session or presbytery, to determine if the matter is essential to Reformed faith and polity.
The Task Force recommendations do not add any standards, remove any standards or change any standards. They affirm the standards and the method by which they are established. It does not condone any governing body omitting any standards. It merely restores to the Church a way of applying the standards, a way that is both fresh and deeply traditional.
The highly-diverse, 20-member Task Force was unanimous in their approval of the recommendations, and in the body of their report they say with emphasis, “We have not compromised our basic convictions or commitments.” (lines 371-372)
The Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) says that “The recommended authoritative interpretation is clear and within the power of the General Assembly to approve if it chooses.“
“Pro” arguments
Jesus’ prayer was that the Church might be one.
Approval of the Task Force report will allow people of good will on both sides of the debate to stay together in one body while strenuously upholding the values they cherish. It allows for the continued wholeness of the body, the continued functioning of the Church in all its richness of grace, thought, love and discipline. And it does so in the most personal settings, the sessions and presbyteries where face to face we engage persons and matters in the grace of the body held together by the love shown in the Lord’s redemptive table.
Approval will enable the Church to put behind us the controversy that has plagued us over the last decades and move ahead.
The PUP report doesn’t come down on either side of the controversy before us or offer new legislation, but raises up Reformed polity to be applied by sessions and presbyteries on a case-by case basis. The report reminds presbyteries and sessions that they have a way of balancing the will of the majority and the conscience of the individual.
The report represents Presbyterian polity at its best. It allows ordaining bodies (sessions and presbyteries) to be both pastoral and discerning. It maintains our constitutional standards of Christian conduct while allowing those with the best knowledge of individuals–sessions and presbyteries–to make decisions regarding the appropriateness of their ordinations and their fitness to serve. It calls on presbyteries and sessions to wrestle with standards of belief and conduct in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and determine their highest priorities.
The Task Force accomplished what many thought was impossible. Surely God was with this Task Force.
“Con” arguments
Those who object to this report will do so on several points.
Con: This authoritative interpretation could be abused by a presbytery or session that does not take its discernment process seriously in each case. This surely is a legitimate objection.
Rebuttal: The report says (lines 1155-1161) “Though current practices vary from session to session and presbytery to presbytery, it is often reported that examinations lack rigor by not fully investigating the scope of each officer-elect’s beliefs practices, gifts, willingness to uphold the governance of the church, and scruples. The authoritative interpretation lifts up the obligation of the ordaining or installing body to gain the broadest visions of each officer-elect’s faith, manner of life, and promise as it applies standards and makes determinations about essentials.”
Con: The authoritative interpretation could also be abused by a session or presbytery that attempts to adopt a blanket policy that they will ordain any comer with a certain “scrupled” practice. This would constitute the local option objection that many voice.
Rebuttal: The report is clear that the whole Church sets the standards (lines 1131-1137). “… [T]his authoritative interpretation do[es] not permit the kind of ‘local option’ arrangements that some have proposed, in which each ordaining and installing body sets its own standards. Such a procedure would be new, and it would be un-Presbyterian.” The ACC report says, “… [W]hen faced with such a declaration higher governing bodies must exercise oversight, whether pastoral or administrative over the disobedient governing body.” Rather than local option, the authoritative interpretation proposal is case-by-case discernment.
Con: Another objection focuses on the word, SHALL. “Shall” in the Book of Order indicates that a practice is mandated and binding on all governing bodies and ordained officers. A governing body or officer violating a mandatory policy can be brought into the disciplinary process. The word “shall” specifically appears in G-6.0106b, the fidelity and chastity provisions, third sentence, and in many other places in the Book of Order. Those opposed to the authoritative interpretation will say that these mandatory policies supersede the freedom of conscience within bounds provisions of G-6.0108, and that they cannot be scrupled.
Rebuttal: G-6.0108 applies to the whole constitution, and the Task Force wrote the authoritative interpretation to apply to the whole constitution as well. Freedom of conscience within bounds means there are boundaries, but the boundaries are set not by what can be scrupled but by what is essential. In Presbyterian polity, the session or presbytery holds power to determine fitness for office, applying church-wide standards. If a person is to be ordained through the extraordinary means (G-14.0313) or departure from the standards, that determination is rightly made by the ordaining body. Presbyterian polity gives presbyteries and sessions the authority and power to make those decisions. Our polity also gives them authority to judge if a person’s doctrines, beliefs and now, by way of reminder, practice conform to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity. Intentionally, there is no list of what is essential. This allows the Church to avoid the Fundamentalist approach to the faith. The closest thing to a list regarding beliefs is in the Book of Order G-2.0500. If there were a list of essentials of Reformed polity, it would look nothing like a list of the “shall” statements in the Book of Order. We are a Church held together not by a set of church laws, but by our common experience of the grace of Jesus Christ. The framers of our polity in 1729 balanced the conscience of the individual under the rule of the majority. G-6.0108 expresses that balance.
In Reformed polity, God alone is Lord of the conscience under the authority of Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith (Ch. I, 10) says, “The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” Requiring strict compliance on all points of polity in the Form of Government gives greater authority to the Church’s polity than to the scripture and confessions from which it is derived. The proposed authoritative interpretation restores the balance and allows for the possibility that God can speak in a way different from that expressed in the Form of Government. The Book of Order does not bind the Holy Spirit.
Con: Some who object to the recommendations will cite the sentence in G-6.0106b regarding “practices the confessions call sin.” The sentence says, “Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.”
Rebuttal: Heretofore, neither the General Assembly nor its Permanent Judicial Commission has addressed whether the freedom of conscience provisions of G-6.0108 limit the “broad prohibition on ordination” of persons refusing to repent, according to the ACC. However, the ACC report says, “This portion of the proposed authoritative interpretation [5.c.] offers a means, consistent with historic polity, for principled distinctions to be made by governing bodies in determining which practice the confessions call sin, in particular circumstances, disqualify a person from ordination or installation” (ACC report, p. 6, top.)
Con: People opposed to the ordination of any sexually active single heterosexual or homosexual person, or a person who is not faithful in marriage, will be against this authoritative interpretation because it will allow a session or presbytery to ordain such a person.
Rebuttal: This is true, but the key here is that it is on a case by case basis, and only if the case passes the test of essentials. Under this authoritative interpretation, conservative ministers and elders could find themselves voting to ordain a particular gay or lesbian person who meets their criteria of character and demeanor. Liberal elders and ministers could find themselves voting not to ordain certain homosexual persons who do not meet their criteria of character and demeanor. The Task Force members reported they were in agreement that “Those who demonstrate licentious behavior should not be ordained.” (lines 581-582) If a governing body decides to ordain a person who departs from any of the standards, it can do so only if it deems that standard is not essential. This represents an individual’s departure from the standard, not an endorsement, and not a change in the standard. It is not a precedent-setting decision.
Con: Some will object that this authoritative interpretation allows scrupling when in the case of the ordination of women (specifically the Kenyon case) those being examined for ordination were not allowed to be ordained in spite of having a scruple about ordaining women. Specifically, a person being considered for ordination as a minister said he could not in good conscience participate in the ordination of women.
Rebuttal: In the case of the ordination of women, the Church had broad consensus. In the case of the ordination of sexually-active homosexuals, the Church does not have consensus. Therefore, a different means of dealing with this is necessary. The ACC had no objection in principle to the authoritative interpretation being approved.
Conclusion: The extreme diversity of the Task Force has resulted in a report of marvelous balance that should be approved. Commissioners to the General Assembly should resist the temptation to amend the recommendations or approve any overtures in any way that would upset this balance and cause the report to come down on one side or the other.
Recommendation 5 is simply Presbyterian polity stated clearly and without bias. Remove the question of ordination of homosexuals and the recommendation would have zero controversy about it. And that is how it should be.
General Assembly commissioners need to stay focused on the big picture. The PUP recommendations can enable us to stay together. They can allow each of us to stand firm for our convictions and do what Presbyterians do best–make decisions in open discussion in governing bodies, seeking the will of Jesus Christ.
This watershed moment will let the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) put this decades-long ordeal behind and get on with being a church in mission and ministry to a broken, wounded, hurting world.
Bill Lancaster is associate for mission, Foothills Presbytery, Greenville, S.C.
