Sacramento Presbytery, in a vote that is catching the attention of folks around the country, has passed a resolution that apparently would allow congregations that wanted to leave the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to do so with their property.
It also voted not to grant any exceptions to the PC(USA)’s ordination standards, not to recognize any “scruples” involving individual conscience, and not to allow the presbytery to make up the difference if congregations withhold their per capita payments to protest policies of the national church.
The presbytery met for more than four hours on Sept. 9 in a specially-called meeting requested by three pastors and three elders, who presented four resolutions https://www.sacpresby.org/Meetings/Call%20for%20Special%20Meeting.pdf for the presbytery to consider. All four passed, including one that would allow congregations that want to leave the denomination to do so without forfeiting their property. That resolution — approved by a 73-65 margin — states that the presbytery “shall take no action to enforce any general trust interest” involving property of congregations within the presbytery.
What exactly this will mean in practice remains to be seen.
No one seems clear on exactly how many congregations seem inclined to leave the PC(USA) from Sacramento presbytery — if there are churches that will take their property and go.
Donald Baird, pastor of Fremont Church and one of those who called for the meeting, said three or four congregations in the presbytery may be considering leaving, but he hopes the resolutions passed will convince them to reconsider.
“We wanted to find a safety valve for the churches in this presbytery who were so upset,” Baird said in an interview. “This is a wonderful safety valve for those who considered their Book of Order has been sabotaged and they were never consulted. … I think it gives a model for all the other presbyteries in the denomination for what they can do constructively to respond.”
Legal challenges to the presbytery’s actions, however, are considered likely.
“Oh, they’re all going to be challenged — I’m sure they will be,” Richard Pearson, the presbytery’s stated clerk, said in an interview.
“I expect there to be a very aggressive action” attacking the presbytery’s resolutions, from the PC(USA)’s national offices on down, Baird said. “I think they will see the action of the presbytery of Sacramento as a real threat to their agenda. I think they are going to pull out all the stops, they’re not going to hold back. I expect this is just the beginning.”
Whatever happens in the courts — be it the church courts or the secular judicial system — the presbytery’s action is a reflection of what some of the 173 presbyteries are talking about as they respond to the controversial report of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the PC(USA).
That report, which the General Assembly approved in Birmingham in June, allows presbyteries and sessions to decide if a departure from the denomination’s ordination standards is so significant it violates an essential of Reformed faith and polity, or whether, considered in the whole context of a candidate’s life and gifts for ministry, it can be tolerated.
Rather than wait to consider individual cases, some presbyteries are considering blanket policies on whether they will grant exceptions to the standards based on conscience. Some are considering resolutions that would name as an “essential tenet” the PC(USA)’s ordination standards involving sexual relationships.
Many Presbyterians who say the denomination should not ordain sexually-active gays and lesbians were furious when the assembly passed the task force report, saying that an authoritative interpretation allowing presbyteries to decide when and whether to accept “scruples” — exceptions based on conscience — basically eroded the ordination standards the denomination repeatedly has considered and upheld.
So some in Sacramento presbytery wanted to move quickly — Baird, for example, argued that “we did not want the decision for ordination to be made case by case, because that becomes arbitrary,” and candidates won’t know what to expect.
“Just to be fair, we want to say, `These are our standards.’ If you can affirm these standards, we’d love to have you as a member of our presbytery,” he said. “If you can’t affirm them, don’t shame yourself or embarrass yourself” by asking for an exception.
“Some presbyteries in our denomination have ordained people outside of the bounds of what the constitution says is right,” said John Moser, pastor of Covenant Community Church in Vacaville, Calif. The Sacramento resolutions send a message that “from here forward, our presbytery respects the constitution and enforces it,” Moser said.
But others say the presbytery acted too quickly, without enough warning (notice of the meeting went out less than two weeks before it was held) and without giving enough time to think through and discuss the implications of the task force report.
Sandy Peirce, a member-at-large of the presbytery who has served on the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly, described the way things were handled as “challenging to the spirit of peace, unity, and purity” the task force called for, and said: “It seemed like it was contrary to informed deliberation.”
The new resolutions also raise some questions about how, in practice, things could play out.
The Theological Task Force’s report doesn’t just involve cases in which a person disagrees with the constitutional standards involving sexual behavior — standards that limit ordination to those who practice chastity if they’re single or fidelity if they’re married. A candidate for ordination, or a seasoned pastor transferring into the presbytery, might also consider declaring a scruple on a matter of theology — disagreeing, for example, with something in the PC(USA)’s Book of Confessions.
“This denies all the possibilities of freedom of conscience,” Peirce said in an interview. “It’s like we’ve denied the question even being asked, let alone what the answer might be.”
She said she is also troubled by the seeming discrepancy of saying that candidates for ordination or installation can’t declare scruples based on conscience, but congregations that disagree with PC(USA) actions or policies are allowed to withhold funding as a matter of conscience.
Pearson said there may also be difficulties with the resolution involving property — particularly if some of the members of a church that wants to leave would prefer to stay.
“That’s the whole question — is Sacramento on thin ice because of what they did, or … on solid ground?” he asked. “That’s an issue for the court” to decide.
