Respect for biblically-
formed conscience
In its first action, General Assembly adopted an AI that affirms the action taken by the 217th General Assembly (2006) on the Report of the Theological Task Force and resolves three critical debates arising out of that Assembly.
• First, the AI makes clear that persons can declare scruples on matters of both belief and practice. It declares, “Section G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination” (emphasis added). General Assembly therefore affirmed the inseparable relationship between belief and practice (G-1.0304) and rejected claims that persons may disagree, but must always comply, with church standards.
• Second, the AI makes clear that all ordination standards are treated equally and may be scrupled. Confusion about this arose several months ago when the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission held, in Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh, that sessions and presbyteries could not permit conscientious departures from the part of G-6.0106b that singles out “fidelity and chastity” as an example of confessional standards. General Assembly overruled this, holding that the requirements of G-6.0108 “apply equally to all ordination standards.”
• Finally, the AI makes clear that scruples “cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).” This should put an end to claims that mutual forbearance in non-essential matters could undermine our commitment to such practices as, for example, women’s ordination.
In short, the 218th General Assembly, in adopting this AI, deepened the church’s renewed commitment to our centuries-old tradition of respect for the freedom of biblically-formed conscience.
Ordination of persons in same-sex relationships
The 218th General Assembly also corrected an error made thirty years ago that singled out a single, contested sexual ethic and made conscience irrelevant to it. General Assembly declared that certain 1978-79 statements (that “unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination”) and “all subsequent affirmations thereof” are of “no further force or effect.” What does this mean?
• First, this AI wiped the slate clean of all statements that might categorically exclude persons in same-sex relationships from ordained service. This includes statements from the GAPJC in cases like Blasdell (1985), LeTourneau (1993), Sallade (1993), West Jersey (1993), Hope (1994), Central (1996), Wier I (1998), Londonderry (2000), Sheldon (2000), Weir II (2002), Redwoods (2003), McKittrick (2003), and Stewart (2008).
• Because the new AI nullified only statements “concerning ordained service,” it did not compromise other statements from 1978-79 that were more inclusive — that examinations should be conducted with sensitivity and discretion; that seminaries should apply non-discriminatory standards of admission; that Presbyterians should reject their own homophobia and challenge that of others; and that the church should work to end discrimination and stereotyping in civil law and society. Likewise, in nullifying only subsequent “affirmations” of the 1978-79 statements, General Assembly ensured that more inclusive statements remain in effect. Thus, the church continues its commitment “not to exclude anyone categorically in considering those called to ordained service in the church, but to consider the lives and behaviors of candidates as individuals” (1998); prohibits discriminatory examination based on sexual orientation, recognizing that all persons, being sinners, are equally likely and prone to violate church standards (Wier II 2002); and affirms that sexual orientation is no more sufficient or reasonable grounds for questioning than is singleness, obesity, or any other personal characteristic (Redwoods 2003).
• Finally, in stating that the 1978-79 statements and their progeny “have no further force or effect,” General Assembly ensured that sessions and presbyteries have a truly clean slate on which to consider candidates’ declared departures from standards. General Assembly did not simply say that these old statements are no longer binding, rather, it said that we do not presently have sufficient consensus to take a position on this question. That is consistent with the Introduction that General Assembly added to the Book of Confessions in 1997: “Even if a bare majority were able to defeat a very large minority in voting for one option in preference to another, it would ordinarily be premature and dishonest for the church to claim, ‘This is what we Presbyterians believe’” (Book of Confessions, p. xxiv).
Some have claimed that the 218th General Assembly tossed Scripture to the winds in favor of cultural relativism. Such misguided hyperbole deeply disserves a church that is trying to find a way forward in unity. In fact, what the 218th General Assembly said was that sincere Presbyterians, acting in good faith, have strongly held differences of conscience on this issue. Since at least 1753, we Presbyterians have acknowledged that “What is plain sin and plain duty in one’s account is not so in another’s. … [W]e must not make terms of communion which Christ has not made” (Minutes of the Presbyterian Church in America 1708-1788, p. 287). The actions of the 218th General Assembly return us to this bedrock of our theological tradition.
Proposed Amendment of G-6.0106b
In addition to its AIs, which were immediately effective when adopted, the 218th General Assembly proposed that the church replace current G-6.0106b with a statement that candidates for office “pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions.”
The proposed amendment is theologically sound because, unlike current G-6.0106b, it would reaffirm the pre-eminent authority of Jesus Christ in the church. Likewise, the proposed amendment is good polity, because it would broaden an excessively narrow focus on one contested sexual ethic that has distorted both our selection of church officers and our life together in the service of Jesus Christ for far too long.
That said, it should be noted that the proposed amendment has little practical importance, insofar as ordination standards are concerned. The AIs discussed above have provided clarity on long-disputed points and changed the landscape enormously. While some believe that G-6.0106b is a bulwark of fidelity to a particular interpretation of Scripture, the new AIs make clear that sessions and presbyteries are free to consider alternative interpretations in mutual forbearance where biblically-formed consciences differ. Likewise, while some seek the elimination of G-6.0106b as a matter of justice, true justice in the church depends not on revision of the Constitution, but on real reformation of hearts and minds across the church. However the voting goes on revision of G-6.0106b, freedom of conscience will remain, and true justice and hospitality will remain to be sought.
Doug Nave is a lawyer currently practicing in London, England. He is a trustee of Fifth Avenue Church in New York City, and serves on the board of directors of The Covenant Network of Presbyterians.
