I believe the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is in a particularly parlous place.
For the last three decades we have been struggling with issues related to human sexuality. The most prominent issues have been abortion, the nature of marriage, and the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians.
Ordination is the current flash point. The prohibition from ordaining self-affirming practicing homosexuals that was established in 1978 was incorporated into the Constitution with the 1996 addition of G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity amendment.” Some in our church found this provision so offensive that they set out to defeat it, using three strategies. The legislative strategy, to remove it by action of the General Assembly and presbyteries, failed twice, by increasing margins. The most recent legislative attempt, the Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108, was approved by the 217th General Assembly in Birmingham, but has brought us neither peace nor unity, and purity is not enhanced. The judicial strategy has sought to challenge the prohibition over the years, but no decision has overturned the principle that a governing body may not ordain or install a non-celibate gay or lesbian. “Victories” have been claimed, but they were narrowly crafted fact-specific decisions that have only established tight rules of procedure.
The third strategy, a most particularly destructive one, is the civil disobedience model. Individuals have intentionally disobeyed the various rules on ordination, marriage, etc., challenging the system to act through judicial or other processes. In some cases, governing bodies have intentionally flouted the Constitution, ordaining men and women known to be in violation of constitutional standards. In my discussions and observations, those who disobey seem to claim conscience or a higher truth, and to rely on a theory of civil disobedience.
I have for years decried this strategy of disobedience publicly and privately–and have failed to persuade of the radical danger such a strategy poses to the church. I have failed to persuade that governing bodies are created by the Constitution; that the effect of the intentional refusal of a governing body to abide by the very document that created it damages the foundation of polity; that the deliberate violation breaks the trust necessary for our polity to work; and that if a governing body can violate the document that created it in one case, why not another?
The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission has denied the argument that conscience trumps the Constitution, because the Constitution explicitly limits the freedom to act on one’s conscience. G-6.0108b.
The application of civil disobedience principles is misplaced. The civil disobedience model is one in which a person disobeys a law, claiming that the law violates the Constitution of a state or the United States; appeal is made to the Constitution to justify the act. An intentional violation of the Constitution itself is sedition, an attack on the authority of the state. In the Presbyterian Church, all is Constitution; we have no laws or statutes since we have built all our rules into the Constitution itself. An intentional violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is an attack on the government of our church.
Such intentional violations of the Constitution of our church have been occurring for years. And though individuals have been affected by the outcomes of the various trials, governing bodies have generally not been held accountable. The reason for the failure to call governing bodies to task seems clear: Our system of government allows no effective remedies for intentional violations. A presbytery can hold a session accountable and has substantial authority in cases where there has been serious disorder, but asserting that authority requires substantial political will that is sometimes lacking. There is, however, no effective way to force a presbytery or synod to comply. A presbytery is required to follow the orders of higher governing bodies, whether in the form of administrative review or judicial rulings, but compliance is purely voluntary. Our polity is grounded on this voluntary covenant we call our Constitution, so when the violation is intentional, the Constitution is effectively invalidated.
For reasons not clear to me, there has been no general alarm about the pattern of intentional disobedience by governing bodies with regard to ordination matters. The response seems to have been limited to calls to trust the various processes of our church, and a grudging tolerance when the issue of compliance was not addressed. Opponents of ordination are outraged, but have been unable to make their case. In effect, precedent has been set that would seem to say when governing bodies feel particularly passionate, we will not challenge their intentional disobedience.
There are recent expansions of the disobedience strategy. Since the Birmingham Assembly and the Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108, governing bodies around the country have taken various actions challenging the portions of Chapters VII and VIII governing ownership of property by local churches. Two presbyteries have declared that their churches do not need the permission of the presbytery to sell or encumber their property, that they make no claim on the property of any church, and that they will not enforce the trust provision.
The principle here is exactly the same as with those governing bodies that have flouted the Constitution to ordain non-celibate gays and lesbians, and the ironies are hard to swallow. Many who objected to actions that violated G-6.0106b now applaud actions violating property provisions; a denomination that let slide earlier violations of the Constitution about ordination is now responding vigorously to latter-day violations concerning property.
There are some substantive differences, of course. Ordaining a non-celibate gay or lesbian is not a money issue; permitting churches to leave the denomination without compensation is. Civil law will not involve itself in ordination matters because of the First Amendment; civil courts will take up matters of property. Notwithstanding the claims of righteousness, however, the principle is the same: both actions are intentional violations of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
These recent actions seem linked to a desire by some to depart the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) for purer pastures. I have heard some say, “Let them go,” as if that were a good solution to the stresses we face today. The cost is just too great, however. Not in dollars, not in numbers, not in influence, but in faithfulness. We call ourselves a Reformed Church, always reforming. There is a tension in the Presbyterian Church, a tension that has on occasion arisen to significant conflict. But for most of our history we have lived and thrived within this creative tension. The tension is actually necessary, absolutely necessary, for the Presbyterian Church to continue reforming, for it is from the wrestling over issues and perspectives that movement emerges. When this tension goes away, the result is a Reformed Church in stasis.
Our polity is in jeopardy. Our government is in jeopardy. Our church is in jeopardy. Since we have all voluntarily joined, we have, as we must, depended on promises to comply with the covenant we have with one another. When members and officers and governing bodies disown that promise, the whole system becomes unstable and the church ungovernable.
Any resolution lies with us, the members and officers of the Presbyterian Church. We must reach inside to find the faith that God can and will work in us if we but allow ourselves to be touched, to find the loyalty to the Church as the Body of Christ, to reestablish the trust with each other that must be present and strong if we are to survive. If there be any honor in the pledges made; if there be any love of this church; if there be any grace–I beg self-restraint for the love of Christ. For it appears to me that without the voluntary compliance with the polity that governs us, trust vanishes and the ministry of Jesus Christ in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will suffer immensely.
Edward Koster is stated clerk of the Detroit Presbytery and has a law practice in Ann Arbor, Mich.
