The
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church Breaks Trust with Its Own
Denomination
by
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
June 23, 2006
For a pdf version of
this article go here.
On June 20, 2006, the 217th
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)—or, more precisely,
57% of GA—broke constitutional trust with its own denomination by voting
298-221 to approve the controversial “Recommendation 5” of the Final
Report of the Peace-Unity-Purity Task Force.
Contrary
to longstanding practice in the PCUSA, approval of this recommendation
will now allow individual ordaining and installing bodies—regional
presbyteries for ministers and local church sessions for elders and
deacons—to decide for themselves which ordination “requirements” are
“essential” and which are nonessential, thereby posing no necessary
barrier to ordination. It amounts to de facto local option, or
local license, on ordination standards. In committee and in the plenary
Rec. 5 was amended slightly to say that ordination and installation
decisions could be reviewed by higher governing bodies to see if they “comply
with the constitution of the PCUSA.” Nevertheless, it is very doubtful
that this amendment will significantly inhibit local license on
ordination since, as we shall see in a moment, the Task Force’s own
rationale for Rec. 5 cites a particularly overt act of noncompliance
with respect to an explicit provision of the Book of Order as
within the bounds of acceptability.
This is an unusual development for a
denomination that has always prided itself on its national “connectionalism.”
In effect, so far as ordination requirements are concerned, this new
development converts the connectionalism of the PCUSA into
congregationalism, a loose affiliation of basically autonomous local
churches.
The reason for this polity about-face
is the issue of homosexual practice. Recommendation 5 was aimed
particularly against a provision in the Book of Order (the polity
half of the Constitution of the PCUSA) known as G-6.0106b, which
prohibits the ordination and/or installation of officers of the church
engaged in unrepentant sexual relations outside “the covenant of
marriage between a man and a woman.” In its rationale for Rec. 5, the
Task Force cited G-6.0106b as its only specific example of an
explicit provision of the Book of Order that could be deemed
nonessential by ordaining/installing bodies.
The GA broke trust with its own
denomination in two ways.
First, the GA accepted the Task
Force’s convoluted rationale that this radical change of denominational
polity could be achieved merely through an “authoritative
interpretation” of the Book of Order rather than through a
constitutional amendment. The former requires only a majority vote
of the General Assembly (which meets once every two years). The latter
is far more difficult to achieve because it requires, in addition,
approval by a majority of the presbyteries. Both in 1997-98 and
2001-2002 supporters of homosexual unions attempted to remove or
radically modify G-6.0106b through constitutional amendment. Both
efforts succeeded at the General Assembly level, by increasingly large
margins. But both failed at the presbytery level, also by increasingly
large margins.
The 2001-2002 attempt is especially
noteworthy. It began with a 2001 overture from the Baltimore Presbytery
that looks remarkably like the current Rec. 5. The overture petitioned
the General Assembly to declare, by “authoritative interpretation,” that
G-6.0106b was not an essential of Reformed faith and polity and give
ordaining/installing bodies the latitude not to require compliance with
G-6.0106b. However, the 2001 Advisory Committee on the Constitution
(ACC) advised that “the method of revoking portions of the Book of
Order is by the amendment process” and not “by an act of the General
Assembly alone.” This advice was consistent with all decisions
rendered over previous 25 years or more by the Presbyterian high court
(the GA Permanent Judicial Commission), the General Assembly, and even
the ACC. (For this and the next paragraph see James Tony and Gordon
Fish, “ACC Advice on PUP: Omissions, Misrepresentations, and
Contradictions,” especially parts 4, 6, 7, at
http://www.presbycoalition.org/pupadvice1.htm.)
Consequently, the 2001 General
Assembly, by a nearly two-thirds margin, sent an amendment to the
presbyteries to remove G-6.0106b and add a line to G-6.0106a that would
give each ordaining body the right to determine which ordination
requirements were essential. However, nearly three-quarters of the
presbyteries rejected the proposed amendment. The result gave powerful
testimony to the fact that the 500 or so commissioners that voted at
General Assemblies were no longer representative of the denomination as
a whole, at least as regards sexuality issues.
Based on that experience, the PUP Task
Force and a sympathetic 2006 General Assembly knew that it could never
get the proposal of local determination passed by a constitutional
amendment. So it followed the route of the 2001 Baltimore Presbytery in
putting forward an “authoritative interpretation.” This time it had the
help of the ACC, which reversed all its earlier opinions to declare that
local ordination license was now “within the power of the General
Assembly [alone] to approve if it chooses.”
At every step of the way in committee
and plenary sessions of the 2006 General Assembly, supporters of the
Task Force proposal steadfastly refused to refer the matter to the
presbyteries for further discernment. They succeeded in ramming through
GA an amendment to the Book of Order in the guise of an
“authoritative interpretation” that needed no ratification by the
presbyteries. In so doing, they did an end-run around the constitutional
right of the plurality of presbyteries to set compulsory ordination
standards, taking away the power of the presbyteries without their
consent and eliminating an important check-and-balance in Presbyterian
polity. That amounts to a breach of constitutional trust. A determined
minority of the PCUSA has imposed its will on the overwhelming majority
of PCUSA members.
A second and even more insidious
way in which the 217th General Assembly has broken trust with
its own denomination is by twisting words in the Book of Order to
mean what in context they could never mean to reasonable persons acting
reasonably.
I am a professor of New Testament at
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. If I were to tell a class, “There will
be a major exam in four weeks,” and then give an additional, unannounced
major exam three days later, I would break trust with the class. I would
do so by interpreting words to mean what, in context, they do not
normally mean to reasonable persons. The very act of announcing a future
exam creates the common supposition that there will be no second,
intervening exam. It would be wholly inappropriate to say in my defense,
“But I never explicitly said that I wouldn’t give an exam in
three days.”
Similarly, G-6.0106b makes a point of
explicitly singling out from amongst “the historic confessional
standards of the church” one that is particularly obligatory for “those
who are called to office in the church”; namely, “the requirement to
live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man
and a woman, or chastity in singleness.” This singling out creates an
implicit linguistic contract with its readers that does not require
explicit use of the word “essential.” How can an ordination
requirement in the Book of the Order that is specifically singled out
for obedience from amongst all other confessional standards be construed
reasonably by an ordaining or installing body as nonessential?
Such a construal would make
nonsensical the act of singling out a standard for obedience. Why
make a point of singling out a standard if not to insist that this
standard, at least, must be observed as an essential of ordained office?
Moreover, Scripture treats homosexual practice as a violation whose
severity is on the order of, or worse than, a man having consensual
sexual relations with his mother. This assessment has also been the
historic view of the church over two millennia. Contrary to what the PUP
Task Force Final Report says, the requirement that officers of
the church refrain from serial, unrepentant acts of adultery,
fornication, incest, and same-sex intercourse has never been merely
“aspirational.” Furthermore, in the debates of 1996-97, 1997-98, and
2001-2002 supporters and opponents of G-6.0106b alike recognized that
G-6.0106b set a compulsory national ordination requirement. So the
literary and historical context for the ordination requirement cited in
the second sentence of G-6.0106b makes clear that the requirement is to
be understood as essential. Even if the Task Force’s distinction
between an ordination “requirement” and an ordination “essential” were
credible, surely the language of G-6.0106b and its historical context
would establish that this requirement, at least, is an essential
ordination standard.
It is not necessary in such a context
to use the explicit word “essential” to communicate the absolutely
mandatory character of the standard. And yet, against all reason, the
Task Force Final Report states in its rationale for Rec. 5:
If an ordaining or installing body
determines that an officer-elect has departed from G-6.0106b, a manner
of life standard. . . . [and judges the departure] not to violate the
essentials of Reformed faith and polity, . . . then there is no barrier
to ordination. . . . [T]he ordaining/installing body would make the
decision, with the help of the Spirit [!]. (ll. 1222-32)
By the
same token, even though the word “essential” is not explicitly used of
the first ordination vow—“Do
you trust in Jesus Christ your Savior, acknowledge him Lord of all and
Head of the Church, and through him believe in one God, Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit?”—it would be an obvious distortion of the Constitution
for an ordaining or installing body to conclude that this is a
nonessential standard for ordination. The fact that it is an ordination
vow—indeed, the first one—and the significance of the confession
of Christ as Lord and Savior both in the New Testament and in the
historic faith of the church make clear that this confession is
essential for ordination and installation.
Non-compliance with the plain
meaning of the Book of Order betrays the common trust. And yet
commissioners at this year’s General Assembly repeatedly heard from
supporters of Recommendation 5, “Trust us.”
The PCUSA has entered a new,
postmodernist phase in interpreting the Book of Order.
Reasonable people can no longer count on explicit provisions of the Book
of Order being reasonably interpreted. The rules of the game have
changed in mid-game to accommodate an unprincipled position.
Constitutional trust has been virtually obliterated by the General
Assembly’s actions.
This postmodernist phase has even
affected the plain meaning of G-6.0106b as regards a prohibition of
unrepentant homosexual practice on the part of officers of the church.
The 2006 Advisory Committee on the Constitution, for example, has stated
that G-6.0106b does not clearly prohibit homosexual practice.
-
The ACC argues that “chastity in singleness” is
unclear. Yet “chastity in singleness” as the only alternative
to “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a
woman” has historically meant in the church only one thing: abstinence
from all sexual activity. Jesus himself was quite clear that
sexual relations must be confined to marriage between a man and a
woman (Matthew 19). According to Jesus, even “born eunuchs,” who in
Jesus’ day probably included men with an exclusive sexual attraction
for men, were subject to this prerequisite (19:10-12).
-
The ACC also claims that the phrase “any practice
that the confessions call sin” is too ambiguous. Yet surely the
immediately preceding sentence makes clear that the phrase
minimally includes sexual relations outside of marriage.
-
Finally, the ACC makes the astounding claim that a
person cannot be charged with “refusing to repent” if he or she
does not believe the behavior in question to be sinful. But it is
precisely to such a person that a call to repentance is most needed.
Christ’s call to repentance is both universal and specific and in no
way depends on the concurrence of offenders for its validity. Had the
apostle Paul operated with the ACC’s view of repentance he could never
have called to repentance the Christian man who was in a sexual
relationship with his stepmother (1 Corinthians 5; compare 2
Corinthians 7:9-10; 12:21).
When G-6.0106b was put in the Book
of Order in 1996-97 and constitutional attempts were made to remove
it in 1997-98 and 2001-2002, both supporters and opponents knew, and
acted as if they believed, that G-6.0106b prohibited unrepentant
homosexual practice on the part of officers. In rejecting the Minority
Report on Item 04-02, which would have clarified this already obvious
point for the hardcore deniers, this year’s GA set the stage for the
2008 General Assembly to construe, by mere “authoritative
interpretation,” “chastity in singleness” in G-6.0106b to include
committed homosexual unions. This, along with a GA rejection of the 1978
“Definitive Guidance” on homosexuality in 2008, would effectively
eliminate even a constitutional “standard” (let alone “essential”)
against homosexual practice—all without submitting anything to the
presbyteries for national approval.
In breaking constitutional trust—both
in (1) making constitutional changes that bypass the amendment process
and (2) construing the language of G-6.0106b to mean what no reasonable
person acting reasonably would understand it to mean—the 217th
General Assembly may have done irreparable damage to the unity of the
denomination. It may have precipitated a constitutional crisis.
Whether the denomination will stay together now depends in large measure
on the high court of the PCUSA, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial
Commission. If the GAPJC, in response to soon-to-come blatant
ordinations of multiple, practicing homosexual persons, does not
interpret the amendments to Rec. 5 regarding compliance with the
Constitution to mean that such persons cannot be ordained, then a
serious fracture of the denomination will be difficult to stop. The call
to mutual trust rings hollow when it issues from the mouths of persons
who have broken that trust through constitutional misdeeds.
As a final word, it may be helpful to
note the fine line between tragedy and comedy in all this; that is, the
three instances of irony in the 2006 GA’s decision.
-
There is the irony regarding trust, already
mentioned. Supporters of Rec. 5 have browbeated non-supporters with
the charge that the latter are not exercising trust. This browbeating
has occurred precisely at the moment when the former have breached
constitutional trust by bypassing the amendment process and twisting
the language of the Book of Order to mean what it clearly does
not. I “trust” supporters of homosexual unions to be in active
non-compliance with G-6.0106b because that is exactly what the
rationale of the Task Force’s Final Report permits them to do.
-
There is the irony regarding women’s ordination.
This year’s General Assembly celebrated the 50th
anniversary of women as ministers of Word and Sacrament by, in effect,
calling compulsory national compliance with women’s ordination a
mistake. For the unintended effect of Rec. 5 is to eliminate any
compulsory national standards for ordination, including a
non-discrimination standard with respect to women. Now, to be sure,
some supporters of Rec. 5 are willing to call such a standard a
mistake, though it seems they do so only in view of the fact that
women’s ordination is no longer significantly threatened in the PCUSA.
Opponents of women’s ordination were long ago driven out. If women’s
ordination were today a matter seriously hanging in the balance, it is
inconceivable that Rec. 5 would have been approved by the General
Assembly. This means, in turn, that advocacy for Rec. 5 is basically
an unprincipled position since it adopts a principle of local license
in ordination standards only when circumstances do not threaten a
cherished national mandate. To adopt a principle only when it serves
one’s ideological interests and to eschew it when it does not is to
arrive at an unprincipled stance. Let it be said, too, that the
principle underlying Rec. 5 is patently absurd. For few would
seriously argue that there should be absolutely no nationally mandated
prerequisites for ordination, such as self-professed Christian faith
(it’s probably not a good idea to ordain atheists) or basic minimal
ethical standards (e.g., it’s probably not a good idea to ordain
serial killers).
-
There is the irony regarding unity. The biggest
claim by proponents of Rec. 5 has been that it will bring unity. And
yet (1) we were told at GA that projected membership losses next year
for the PCUSA will be a high of 85,000, undoubtedly in large measure
because of actions taken at the 2006 GA. Moreover, (2) 43% of the
commissioners at this year’s GA opposed Rec. 5—a very high number for
a legislative body that has consistently been left-of-center on
sexuality issues in relation to the PCUSA as a whole. In addition, (3)
Rec. 5 will not stop conflict at the national level over the sexuality
issue. In 2008 such conflict will only intensify. Everyone knows, or
ought to be able to figure out, that pro-homosex advocacy groups do
not view approval of Rec. 5 as a terminus or stable endpoint for the
church but rather as a transitional stage (compare the websites for
the Covenant Network and “More Light” Presbyterians for their
commentary on the passage of Rec. 5). Even some members of the Task
Force who affirm homosexual unions have stated publicly that, while
they could not get everything they want at the present time, what they
did get (Rec. 5) will lead ultimately to getting everything they want:
unrestricted acceptance for candidates in “committed” homosexual
unions. Indeed, Rec. 5 will hasten that day by officially validating
widespread and blatant noncompliance with G-6.0106b on the
constitutionally and scripturally false premise that the sexual
standard prescribed in G-6.0106b is nonessential.
Along with the conflict increasing at the national level, (4) the
approval of Rec. 5 will extend that conflict to every session and every
presbytery in the country on the local and regional levels. Every
ordaining and installing body will now have to fight it out over whether
practicing homosexual persons will be accepted for ordination. American
history buffs may think of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in pre-Civil War
America—an act that took what had hitherto been treated as a
nationally decided policy on the extension of slavery and made it
into a state decided policy. Although advocates of the
Kansas-Nebraska Act touted it as a measure that would reduce national
discord, the actual effect was the exact opposite. It brought the
national conflict down the state level and increased overall conflict
measurably. Probably no act leading up to the Civil War was a greater
catalyst for national conflict. The 2006 GA’s decision will have a
similar effect (minus the bloodshed, of course). On top of all these
things, (5) Rec. 5 will lead to the problem that the ordination of some
will not be accepted by all presbyteries. What will happen when
homosexually active officers in one presbytery or session move to a
presbytery or session where their ordination is not accepted? Certainly
this will heighten conflict and increase tensions, especially given the
fact that Rec. 5d of the Task Force Final Report states that “all
parties should endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another’s
decisions, according the presumption of wisdom to ordaining/installing
bodies.” How can a presbytery or session that has determined homosexual
practice is strongly inconsistent with Scripture, the confessions, and
the Constitution of the PCUSA “honor” and “accord the presumption
of wisdom” to the ordination of practicing, unrepentant homosexual
persons? Finally, (6) how can unity be fostered by a GA decision that
creates general alienation around the denomination by the circumvention
of the amendment process and of the plain meaning both of the
Constitution and, worse, of Scripture as regards homosexual
practice? Ironically and tragically, what was passed largely on the
supposition that it would significantly increase the unity of the church
will have the exact opposite effect: GA’s approval of Rec. 5 will
bring significantly greater disunity in the PCUSA, possibly to the point
of schism.
Faithful Presbyterians everywhere
should call on the GAPJC (the high court) and all the presbyteries to
restore trust to the PCUSA by turning aside from postmodernist twisting
of language in the Book of Order and letting words mean what
reasonable people reasonably infer them to mean. Only then can we begin
the long, hard work of restoring constitutional trust in the
Presbyterian Church U.S.A.
Robert A. J. Gagnon is Associate Professor of New Testament at
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of
The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts
and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001). Dr. Gagnon served as both an elder
commissioner and overture advocate from Pittsburgh Presbytery at the 217th
General Assembly.