Item:
06-03
Content:
On Amending G-6.0108b, “Freedom of
Conscience - Within Certain Bounds” to Safeguard the Amendment Process
From:
Presbytery of Pittsburgh
Creation Date:
3/16/2006 9:11:44 AM
AssemblyYear:
2006
Type:
For Plenary Action
Committee:
Ecclesiology (06)
Item URL:
http://les-pcusa.org/Item.aspx?IID=73&
Recommendation
The
Presbytery of Pittsburgh overtures the 217th General Assembly (2006) to
direct the Stated Clerk to send the following proposed amendment to the
presbyteries for their affirmative or negative vote:
Shall
G-6.0108b (“Freedom of Conscience Within Certain Bounds”) be amended as
follows: [Text to be added is shown as italic.]
“b. It is to be
recognized, however, that in becoming a candidate or officer of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience
within certain bounds. His or her conscience is captive to the Word of God
as interpreted in the standards of the church so long as he or she
continues to seek or hold office in that body. The decision as to whether
a person has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made
initially by the individual concerned but ultimately becomes the
responsibility of the governing body in which he or she serves. A
specific standard for officers of the church (deacons, elders, or
ministers) that the Form of Government of the Book of Order singles
out from amongst other confessional standards, explicitly labels a
requirement, or associates with mandatory practice by the use of “shall”
language or its equivalent shall be deemed by ordaining and installing
bodies to be an essential of Reformed faith and polity for officers of the
church.”
Rationale
The
purpose of this proposed amendment to the Form of Government of the
Book of Order is to protect the system of checks and balances in the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that reinforces the connectional unity of the
individual churches comprising the PC(USA). At stake is the amendment
process itself, whereby a majority vote by the presbyteries can amend the
Form of Government to establish a binding standard or practice for all
officers and governing bodies of the PC(USA).
The
Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church has
proposed in its final report an authoritative interpretation (A.I.) of
G-6.0108b (Recommendation 5, pp. 35-43) that would eliminate the right of
a majority of the presbyteries to establish binding standards through the
amendment process. The task force’s A.I. would give to other governing
bodies the right to determine which explicit provisions of the Form of
Government are binding: first to local ordaining and installing bodies and
ultimately to the General Assembly and the General Assembly Permanent
Judicial Commission.
In its
rationale, the task force specifically singles out the sexuality standard
in G-6.0106b as a standard that could be deemed nonessential, and thus
nonbinding (pp. 40-41). It does so in spite of the fact that G-6.0106b (a)
was passed specifically to create a mandatory or binding (i.e., essential)
polity standard for the ordination and installation of officers of the
church, (b) singles out from amongst “the historic confessional standards
of the church . . . the requirement to live either in fidelity
within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or
chastity in singleness,” and (c) declares emphatically, using the language
for mandatory practices prescribed in the preface of the Book of Order,
that persons engaged in contrary practices and “refusing to repent . . .
shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or
ministers” [emphases added]. In effect, the task force’s A.I. would
convert this constitutionally mandated, explicit provision of the Book
of Order into an optional, merely recommended provision.
The task
force’s A.I. misinterprets G-6.0108b. The third and final sentence of
G-6.0108b does not say that the local governing body in which a candidate
or officer serves decides what the essentials of Reformed faith and polity
are. It says that the governing body decides whether the candidate or
officer “has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity.” There
is a difference. “Essentials” are those matters of faith and polity that
the Constitution itself indicates are indispensable for ordained
service, which the governing body is bound and obligated to apply when the
candidate or officer is unwilling to recognize that his or her beliefs or
behavior are in violation. No governing body has the right to demote
explicitly mandated constitutional prohibitions involving ordination and
installation to merely recommended prohibitions.
The
General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission understood this in its 2001
Londonderry decision. It ruled, with reference to the sexuality
standard in G-6.0106b, that “there are no constitutional grounds for a
governing body to fail to comply with an express provision of the
Constitution” (Minutes, 2001, Part I, pp. 580-81, paragraph
12.1069). Governing bodies must “comply with the express corporate
judgment of the Church in an explicit constitutional provision”; failure
to do so “exceeds the constitutional bounds of freedom of conscience”
(Ibid, citing G-6.0108a; paragraphs 12.1065-.1066).
The task
force’s A.I. would effectively mean, for example, that a local ordaining
or installing body could deem as nonessential and thus nonbinding any of
the mandated practices for officers in the Book of Order, including
the first of the Constitutional Questions in G-14.0405b about officers
needing to express trust in Christ as one’s Savior and to acknowledge him
as Lord of all. According to the task force’s A.I., the standard could
be ruled as essential, and thus binding, on officers nationally but
only if the General Assembly or General Assembly Permanent Judicial
Commission explicitly ruled it to be essential. The mere fact that
mandatory “shall” language in the Book of Order is used (“. . .
shall then ask the candidate to answer. . . The candidate, having answered
the questions in the affirmative, shall kneel. . .”) will no longer be
sufficient to ensure a nationally mandated practice. A majority of the
presbyteries, through the amendment process, will no longer decide what
the binding polity requirements are, no matter how clear the wording of
the amendment as regards its binding character. Only the General Assembly
or the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission will have that
authority. This will make the government in the PC(USA) much less
representative on a national level, destroy an important check-and-balance
on decisions rendered by the General Assembly or the General Assembly
Permanent Judicial Commission, and undermine the authority of the
Constitution.
That the
General Assembly decisions on sexuality issues in recent years have not
fairly represented the views of Presbyterians nationwide is evident from
votes on sexuality in 2001-2002. In 2001, the General Assembly voted for
an amendment to delete the sexuality standard in G-6.0106b by a landslide
60.4 percent vote. However, when the amendment was sent to the
presbyteries for ratification an even greater landslide in the opposite
direction, 72.7 percent of the presbyteries, rejected the proposed
amendment. When nearly two-thirds of the voting delegates to the General
Assembly votes for something that nearly three-quarters of the
presbyteries later reject, something has gone wrong at the national
General Assembly level.
While the
task force’s A.I. has not yet been approved, it is important to make
explicit in G-6.0108b what has always been implicit and to do so before
any authoritative interpretation is passed at the General Assembly level
that would overturn the plain sense of the text of the Constitution
with a mere majority vote of General Assembly delegates. Once an
authoritative interpretation goes into force, it would take an additional
two to three years to turn back a misinterpretation—two years until the
next General Assembly vote and an additional year to ratify any proposed
amendment. By that time, inertia and new precedent will make it very
difficult to restore the Constitution to its rightful place within
a connectional church. The PC(USA) will benefit from stabilizing the
historic practice of the church through constitutional amendment. It will
thereby protect itself from shifting fads that masquerade as
“authoritative interpretations” of the Constitution but are in fact
new readings against the plain sense of the Constitution’s own
wording. The presbyteries should not so quickly give up their right to
determine, through majority national vote, binding national standards for
ordination to the General Assembly.