The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific ruled in a March 20 decision that San Francisco presbytery was wrong when, in January 2008, it declared Larges as “ready for examination … with a departure” from the ordination standards. It nullified that vote – which means the question of how to handle Larges’ candidacy is back in the hands of the presbytery.
Larges had declared a conscientious objection to the requirement that those being ordained practice fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity if they are single. In a statement she presented to the presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for Ministry, Larges declared that requirement to be “a mar upon the church and a stumbling block to its mission.”
But the synod court ruled that the presbytery could not consider Larges’ objection at that stage of the process, because “the examination for ordination is the proper time for presbytery to determine whether or not a candidate’s departure (from the standards) constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity.”
Larges is one of the first to test a new authoritative interpretation, adopted by the General Assembly in 2006 and stemming from the work of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the PC(USA). That authoritative interpretation allows candidates for ordination to declare “scruples,” or departures of conscience from the standards, and their ordaining body can grant a waiver, “extend forbearance,” if it determines that the departure does not violate an essential of Reformed faith or polity.
On January 15, 2008, after discussing the matter in closed session, San Francisco presbytery voted 167-151 to approve Larges as “ready for examination, with departure” – meaning the presbytery could later examine her as a candidate, asking questions about theology and faith, while accepting that she had already declared a scruple, or departure from the standards, on the “fidelity and chastity” standard.
Some ministers from the presbytery appealed that decision – and the synod court ruling has now nullified that vote. The synod court also ruled that the presbytery’s debate and vote in January, 2008, did not constitute an examination of Larges and that it violated a requirement that those being examined appear personally before the presbytery at that meeting and make a brief statement of personal faith.
“Neither the candidate nor the candidate’s Statement of Faith was presented or made available to the Presbyters at their meeting of January 15, 2008,” the synod court ruled.
The synod did not sustain a series of complaints raised involving decisions made by the presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for Ministry, ruling that it “has no jurisdiction to review the actions of a committee of presbytery.”
And the court did not rule on the substance of Larges’ declaration of departure – in other words, it did not take a position on whether or not declaring an objection to the “fidelity and chastity” clause does violate an essential of Reformed faith and polity. So it’s likely that question will come before the PC(USA) courts again in the future, whether through Larges’ candidacy or someone else’s.
