WARNING: As with all actions of the Assembly, the result is more complex and nuanced than can be adequately communicated in news media, either secular or religious. So please do not jump to conclusions about the content or the effect of any action until you have had the opportunity to fully research the action based on facts rather than opinion.
The 218th General Assembly has taken four actions in two items of business which significantly affect the church's standards for office and the examination of candidates for ordination.
The first of these was an overture from the Presbytery of John Knox (located in parts of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota) which amended the Authoritative Interpretation on G-6.0108 issued by the last General Assembly in response to Recommendation 5 of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church. By a vote of 375-325 (53%-47%) the Assembly adopted the following language:
The 218th General Assembly (2008) affirms the authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 approved by the 217th General Assembly (2006). Further, the 218th General Assembly (2008), pursuant to G-13.0112, interprets the requirements of G-6.0108 to apply equally to all ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). 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. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).A careful reading of this AI shows that it really changes only one element of the final product of the 2006 assembly: namely, that examining bodies are free, if they choose, to treat the second sentence of G-6.0106b (the “fidelity and chastity” sentence) as they do to other standards in evaluating persons being examined. All other elements of the AI remain unchanged, and no element of G-6.0106b has been altered. For example, the third sentence which prohibits the
ordination and installation of persons who refuse to repent of any practice the confessions call sin remains in effect. The change has the appearance of reversing by Assembly action the claim in a recent PJC ruling (Bush) that the fidelity and chastity standard is not subject to "scrupling" (i.e., a
request for approval of a departure from a standard). Of course, I thought that Bush missed the point anyway, in that it focused on the second sentence of G-6.0106b rather than the third sentence in the decision. The third sentence is where the stronger case for obstruction of constitutional governance (based on G-6.0108a) can be made, since it binds the actions of a governing body, to which freedom of conscience does not apply.
While it is obvious that the intent of 05-12 is to amend the Constitution by authoritative interpretation, rather than by the vote of the presbyteries (the only constitutional method), it is unclear that the amendment will accomplish what its drafters hope it will. Not only does it fail to address the limits on the rights of ordaining bodies set in the third sentence, it fails to recognize the distinction between approving an examination (addressed in the AI) and conducting an ordination (not addressed). For example, assume that polygamy is a federal offense. Even if a state should permit polygamous unions, and might even issue a legal marriage license, it might still be a crime to enter a polygamous marriage. By analogy, even if a presbytery might choose to approve the examination of someone who "refuses to repent" of a "self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin," it might still be an irregularity for the presbytery to ordain the person.
The above notwithstanding, the constitutional ground for those who want to enforce G-6.0106b as constitutionally binding is shrinking.
The other actions were part of a single recommendation on Overture 05-09 from Boston Presbytery. The second called for a vote of the presbyteries on a constitutional amendment to G-6.0106b (the “fidelity and chastity” provision) that would substitute new language for the current formulation. Specifically, if approved by the presbyteries, the new G-6.0106b would read:
Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), 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. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.This will be the third time the language of G-6.0106b will be put to the presbyteries for adoption, removal, or replacement. In the past, it has generated tremendous acrimony in the presbyteries, and even within congregations. Let us pray we will be more civil this go-round.
Also included are two other amendments, which would require assent to the constitutional questions of office as part of the examination process. I do not (at this time) detect any significant effect of these amendments on the ordination processes of the church. Whether the questions are asked at the time of examination, or only at the time of ordination, the candidate must affirm them in order to be ordained. Advice of the ACC was approved by this assembly which states that even though the questions have been moved into the Directory for Worship, they are still binding and cannot be "scrupled."
The final action was to rescind, effective at the end of the Assembly, the definitive guidance of 1978 and 1979 on the ordination of self-affirmed, practicing homosexuals, and all authoritative interpretations of the Constitution stemming from them. This last action does not invalidate the current language of G-6.0106b or any authoritative interpretation adopted since it took effect in 1997. It would, however, remove obstacles to the ordination or installation of self-affirming, “practicing” homosexuals should the language of G-6.0106b be deleted or replaced at any future time.
It may be several weeks before we can say with some confidence what the actions truly mean, and yet another season of judicial cases before they are tested. And then, who knows what will happen in Minneapolis at the 219th General Assembly in 2010.
