Twenty Presbyterians gathered in Dallas, Texas in December of 2001 for the first meeting of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity. We had been chosen by the moderators of the three previous General Assemblies, and reflected the diversity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Our commission was to lead the PC(USA) in spiritual discernment of our Christian identity, in and for the 21st century, using a process that included conferring with synods, presbyteries, and congregations. We were to develop a process and an instrument by which congregations and governing bodies could reflect on and discuss matters that unite and divide us, and we were to the promote peace, unity, and purity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
I remember our first meeting well. I knew a few of the others by name and reputation, but had not met anyone else personally prior to the meeting. I sensed an allegiance with two or three of the members whom I knew by reputation to be in the same theological camp as me. I also remember that we went around the room and shared what we believed would constitute success for our group when our work was finished. I said forthrightly that success for me would be to maintain the present ordination standards and preserve the fidelity and chastity amendment in the Book of Order. I also remember Barbara Wheeler’s response. She said that success for her would be to remove G-6.0106b from the Book of Order, because she believed that it was un-Presbyterian and forced the church to reject the call and gifts of many gay and lesbian people whom she loved.
I did not know Barbara Wheeler, but I recognized her as the president of one of the most liberal institutions in the denomination, a leader of the progressive movement in the church, and a brilliant and articulate person. I also knew that my task was to represent the conservative wing of the church, and be a proponent of Biblical truth as those of us in the evangelical wing of the church understood that truth.
During the next four years the members of this group of twenty people, which became known as the PUP Task Force, got to know each other well. We met together three times each year, kept in continual communication via e-mail, and attended General Assemblies as a group. We studied, worshipped, communed, prayed, argued, laughed, ate, wept, and worked together. We fellowshipped together after the workdays were done, and continued conversations in less structured environments. We became friends, and little by little the walls that separated us didn’t seem quite so insurmountable. We were determined that there had to be a way the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) could stay together despite our theological differences.
I would sit in meetings and count votes, wondering if there was any way to preserve the present ordination standards. For a long time I believed that there was only one way to do things, the old-fashioned way, with an up or down vote. Little by little, however, a new way of being church evolved as we looked back at our history, way back, to 1729 when the Westminster Standards were first adopted as the constitution for the fledgling Presbyterian Church in this new world.
I discovered there was another old-fashioned way.
We discovered that our forebears were very bright. They adopted the high standards of Westminster, yet allowed for freedom of conscience in matters not essential to the faith. They allowed one who dissented to claim a scruple on what he, and they were all “he” in those days, believed was not an essential tenet of the faith. The local governing body, which held jurisdiction over ordination, could determine if the individual’s scruple was on an essential tenet or non-essential tenet, and then either proceed with ordination or reject ordination. The standards were in place, but the local governing body had the final decision on ordination for each individual. Our Presbyterian forebears never explicitly spelled out which articles of faith were essential or non-essential, which gave some leeway to local governing bodies in individual situations.
Scrupling had been permitted in the church for 250 years until 1975. At that time a General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission decision changed how our denomination determined which governing body has the final decision on ordination.
It’s a very interesting story. The PJC decision is known to many as the Ken-yon decision (officially it’s called Maxwell vs. the Presbytery of Pittsburgh). A candidate, named Wynn Kenyon, said that he could not affirm the ordination of women. He told the candidates committee he could work with women elders but could not participate in their ordination. The candidates committee (now called CPM) of Pittsburgh Presbytery decided it could not recommend proceeding with his ordination. The presbytery, however, by a close vote, decided to proceed with Kenyon’s ordination. They acknowledged his scruple and made the decision that in his case it was not on an essential of the faith. Some disagreed and before Kenyon could be ordained, the case was appealed to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod, and eventually to the PJC of the General Assembly, which overturned the presbytery action. Kenyon, therefore, was denied ordination, even though his presbytery had voted in the affirmative to ordain him. Scrupling in the denomination came to a screeching halt.
I was a member of conservative Shenango Presbytery at that time. Many in our presbytery were in an uproar over the Kenyon decision, viewing the PJC decision as an infringement on our freedom of conscience, which is part of our denomination’s constitution. The presbytery sent an overture to General Assembly asking it to reinstate scrupling and allow for freedom of conscience as stated in G-1.0301. The GA rejected that overture and others similar to it. That was in 1975. The following year two presbyteries in the UPCUSA, knowing that the local presbytery no longer had the final interpretation on ordination standards, asked the General Assembly what to do with gay or lesbian candidates. The denomination studied the matter and in 1978 the UPCUSA, and in 1979 the PCUS, answered with what became known as Definitive Guidance. Eventually, however, conservatives, knowing that one GA has the authority to overturn a decision of a previous GA, pushed for G-6.0106b (the fidelity and chastity amendment) to be added to the Book of Order. To remove such an amendment would take not only General Assembly action, but also the approval of the majority of the presbyteries. Conservatives, like me, rejoiced with the action, believing the amendment to be Biblically sound, and to uphold our understanding of righteousness. However, many in the progressive wing of the church, determined to have it removed for the sake of love, justice, and civil rights. To them it seemed un-Presbyterian, and did not accord with Reformed theology, as they understood it.
In September 2005 the PUP Task Force released our report, which called for the retention of the present ordination standards but called for the denomination to reinstate the age-old practice of scrupling. The Theological Task Force called for the General Assembly in 2006 to approve an Authoritative Interpretation reinstating scrupling, allowing candidates for ordination to claim a scruple on something in the constitution which they viewed to be non essential. The decision on their ordination would reside with the local governing body as it interpreted and applied the ordination standards in each individual case. It was to be a grand experiment, which was really the way the denomination once did business and dealt with ordination disagreements. By the way, our friends in the PCA allow for scrupling. They also believe in doing polity “the old fashioned Presbyterian way.”
Reaction was immediate. Progressives did not particularly like the report because it did not call for removing the fidelity and chastity amendment. Conservatives did not like the report, because although it left the standards in place, it allowed for what they saw as a loophole whereby more progressive presbyteries and congregations might approve, on a case by case basis, the ordination of a non-celibate gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered candidate.
The General Assembly, meeting in Birmingham in 2006, approved the PUP report by a 57% to 43% vote. It was not an overwhelming margin of victory, but the middle of the church viewed it as the best hope of the denomination to move forward despite our differences. A wise observer of decades of general assembly meetings once observed that at any given General Assembly meeting 35% of the commissioners could be labeled conservative, another 20% could be labeled liberal, and 45% could be labeled moderate. He further observed that moderates have two guiding standards — doing things according to the Book of Order, and preserving the unity of the church. The PUP report appealed to the middle of the church, to those who want to do things decently and in order and also maintain the unity of the church.
The action of the 2008 General Assembly removing the 1978/79 Definitive Guidance and also recommending to the presbyteries the remove of G-6.0106b, replacing it with a much broader statement changes the ordination standards significantly. My firm belief is that the grand experiment of the PUP report will be lost if we approve this action. The PUP report was based on maintaining the present ordination standards yet allowing for local governing bodies to have the final interpretation of those standards. PUP allowed for scrupling on non- essentials but did not recommend removing the standards. Removing the fidelity and chastity amendment could drive many conservatives and evangelicals out of the denomination. A number of my colleagues would consider such an action a crossing of the Rubicon. It would lead to further disunity and mistrust.
Barbara Wheeler and I became friends because of our work together on the Theological Task Force. We continue to have very different beliefs about the issue of the ordination of non-celibate gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. We think differently about the long-term presence of the fidelity and chastity amendment in the Book of Order. However, we both believe that the PUP experiment should be allowed to continue for the sake of the peace, unity, and purity of the Presbyterian Church. Barbara has called upon her progressive colleagues to live with G-6.0106b, and vote to “take no action” on 08-b. I call upon my conservative colleagues and friends to live with the concept of scrupling and the PUP report.
What does it mean for evangelicals and conservatives to live with the PUP report?
It should mean following the guidelines recommended at the Birmingham Assembly, which includes questioning each candidate who comes before us honestly and carefully. Let’s do our homework well, and ask pertinent and important Biblical and theological questions. If and when a candidate claims a scruple on what he or she believes to be a non essential (and very few have done so since this was adopted by the GA in 2006), may we listen carefully, and question that person in a forthright, yet respectful manner. Here comes the hard part, however. If the majority in the governing body decides to honor that individual’s scruple, and proceeds with a positive vote on the ordination of the candidate, may we extend the right hand of fellowship to those with whom we disagree. May we not turn our backs on colleagues who vote differently than us, and may we not seek to flee from the denomination. I confess that such an attitude may not be easy for those of us who have fought in the ecclesiastical wars for many years, including myself.
It is my prayer that moderates in the PC(USA), those whose greatest concerns are order and unity, will also support the call to continue the PUP experiment. The middle of the church holds the majority of the power and will cast the deciding vote. I pray that my moderate colleagues and fellow presbyters will vote to either say no to removing G-6.0106b or at least vote to take no action on amendment 08b.
I believe we need to continue to listen to one another, talk together, build trust, and not further alienate one another. Barbara Wheeler, writes that “this tense and difficult moment in the life of the church, may, in fact, be a rare opportunity for the church to show the world that the church is, indeed, Christ’s own body, not just another organization divided by the culture wars … Christians may still find the grace to behave in ways the world does not expect.” My friend is right.
I pray that, for the sake of the peace, unity, and purity of the PC(USA), the presbyteries will turn down the overture to remove G-6.0106b and replace it with Amendment 08-b. I urge us to maintain the present standards, which will allow the PUP experiment to continue. It may be the last hope for our denomination to stay together and be able to move forward in “missional outreach and love” to a lost and hurting world.
John B. “Mike” Loudon, is pastor of First Church in Lakeland, Fla.
Editor’s Note, November 7, 2008: As Presbyterians consider presbytery action on G-6.0106b, the OUTLOOK makes this statement of clarification: Mike Loudon’s essay, “Let the PUP Report Work” (pub. Nov. 3, 2008), states that that report “called for the retention of the present ordination standards. …” To be exact, the report “encourage[d] the 217th General Assembly (2006) to approve” no changes “…that would have the effect of changing denominational policy on any of the major issues in the task force’s report. …” The rationale of the report explains, “In order to assess whether the ways forward we have proposed are effective in promoting peace, unity, and purity, it seems advisable to all members of the task force, whatever their personal positions on issues, that the task force’s recommendations be considered and weighed in a spirit of discernment, and that they also be given an opportunity to work. … We believe it would create confusion and further conflict to attempt to make major constitutional changes to section G-6.0106 or on other controversial issues before the church has reacquainted itself with the time-tested principles of the proposed authoritative interpretation” (p. 43). The report did not express any opinion regarding possible policy changes that might be considered by subsequent General Assemblies.
