Editor’s note: This article was written in response to “What the amended PUP report actually means” by Clark D. Cowden, which appeared in the September 4 Outlook issue.
Much has been written about General Assembly’s new Authoritative Interpretation of Section G-6.0108 of the Book of Order. Among other things, that Authoritative Interpretation provides that sessions and presbyteries, in conducting their examinations, must determine whether a candidate for ordained office “has departed from scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office” and “whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity.” Chief among the questions being debated is whether a candidate or officer-elect can declare a scruple with respect to matters not only of belief, but also of practice. The answer is clearly “yes.”
Our Historic Principles of Church Order remind us, “there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty” (Book of Order § G-1.0304). In the words of John Calvin, we have “a doctrine not of the tongue but of life” (Institutes, Bk. III, Ch. IV, sec. 4). Jesus taught us that the connection between faith and practice is so close that we can discern one from the other: “By their fruits you will know them” (Matt. 7:15-20, Luke 6:43-45). Practice and belief are inextricably intertwined. It is vitally important that we show each other respect and mutual forbearance in matters of practice, as well as belief, because both arise out of, and are governed by, conscience.
This principle is not new. The charter document of American Presbyterianism, the Adopting Act of 1729, established that candidates may declare scruples as to any “articles not essential and necessary in Doctrine, Worship or Government.” To say that candidates and officers-elect may depart from our standards only in matters of belief, rather than in its concrete manifestation as practice, is contrary both to our Constitution today and to nearly 300 years of history.
It also is contrary to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, who provides our model for ministry. Jesus healed people on the Sabbath, to the outrage of religious leaders, not because he rejected the sanctity of the Lord’s Day but because he believed so deeply in it. Our beliefs permeate who we are and how we act, or they are scarcely worth calling beliefs at all.
For faithful Presbyterians who happen to be gay or lesbian, affirming one’s belief in a loving God who gives us the riches of human relatedness, demands that we be faithful stewards of those gifts and true witnesses to that belief. Scholars like Eugene Rogers have suggested that the practice of fidelity and self-giving in same-sex relationships provides an outworking of grace and means of sanctification in the lives of gay and lesbian Christians, just as it does in those of heterosexual couples. To try to sever the connection between belief and practice does violence to the life of faith, denying belief both its practical significance and the means by which it may be nurtured.
Much discussion about the implications of General Assembly’s new AI turns on a series of cases, roughly 25 years ago, in which General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) had to determine whether presbyteries could ordain or admit into membership men who believed that women should not be ordained.
In two cases, Maxwell (UPC 1977) and Hambrick (PCUS 1983,) the GAPJC held that the presbyteries acted improperly in deciding to ordain or admit such candidates. In two other cases, Huie (PCUS 1977) and Simmons (PCUSA 1985,) the GAPJC upheld the presbyteries’ decision to admit them.
What led to the different results? In the two cases where the presbyteries were found to have acted improperly, the candidate had declared during examination that he would not participate in the ordination of women. In the other two cases, where presbytery’s action was upheld, the minister declared that he would participate in such services of ordination if instructed to do so by his presbytery.
In short, the cases relating to women’s ordination did not turn on whether the candidate believed or acted in a particular way. Rather, they turned on whether the candidate was prepared to carry out the functions of the office he sought.
The GAPJC’s decisions in this area are implicitly grounded in Section G-6.0102 of the Book of Order, which reminds us that “ordained officers differ from other members in function only.” As the GAPJC declared in Hambrick, “the primary purpose of ordination [is] to set apart persons who carry out certain functions for the whole Church which, for the sake of order, other members are not permitted to perform.” The GAPJC emphasized in Simmons “a minister must be willing to perform certain functions of office, both before being received by presbytery, as well as throughout his or her ministry.”
There is little in our judicial case law that addresses any purported distinction between belief and practice where the practice at issue is not also an important function of office. Outside of women’s ordination, recent disputes over the qualification of ministers have turned on theological questions that have little direct bearing on how a person acts.
Some confusion in the church results as people read these cases and conclude that departures can be permitted only in matters of doctrine. However, a careful reading of all of the cases reveals a position that is more theologically sound, insofar as it recognizes the inseparable nature of faith and practice. Where a person seeks ordained office in the church, he or she must be willing to carry out the functions of that office, or the examination cannot be sustained. However, practice-based departures from our standards in other areas are permitted. In such cases, General Assembly’s new Authoritative Interpretation makes clear that sessions and presbyteries must consider the full picture and our historic commitment to freedom of conscience, in discerning a person’s fitness to serve.
Douglas Nave is a member and former trustee of Fifth Avenue Church in New York City and serves on the board of directors of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians.
