How It Is That the General Assembly Did Not Authorize "Local Option"

...

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Aren't the 'essentials of faith and polity' defined in the rationale of Recommendation 5? 'Essential doctrines are those that are required for a person's beliefs to fall within the bounds of Reformed understandings of Christian faith.' 'Essentials of polity are those that are required for a person's ordained service to fall within the bounds of Reformed understandings of church governance.' The Book of Confessions and the Book of Order are our Reformed understandings of Christian faith and church governance are they not and would therefore be 'essential' in their entirety, right? Aren't they the bounds within which falls the requiremnents of our PCUSA Reformed understandings of faith and governance? Are there PCUSA requirements of faith and polity that fall outside their bounds? - Cameron Mott

member SHPC

Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:00:00 +0100

I write as a common member of the church-the ones who sit in the pews and pay the bills.In my opinion the PUP is a cyanical end run around the constitution by an arrogant leadership who puts its agenda above the principles of the church.THe proper course of action was to amend the constitution-having tried and failed on multiple occasions the PUP was conceived. By preventing imput from 'the little people' the GA has doomed the PCUSA to further decline-no peace and no unity. - v c scott

pastor, Center United Presbyterian Church

Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:00:00 +0100

As a commissioner to the 217^th GA, I fully agree with Edward Koster's "Guest Viewpoint" that the PUP Report, as amended and approved, not only does not authorize local option, it actually "strengthens the church-wide standards that are in place."

But apparently our denominational leadership did not get that memo as most of what I continue to read, coming out of Louisville and the recent Hope For the Church Conference, seems to not want to acknowledge this new reality.

Now is the time for PC(USA)'s leadership to speak very clearly (like it or not) about what the amended Authoritative Interpretation does say: that scrupling the "Fidelity or Chastity" clause is not an option, that any attempts to now ordain non-celibate gay leadership will be done in defiance of the decision of 217^th General Assembly; and that all such ordinations must be disapproved by the Church's judicatories.

For our Presbyterian leadership to do or say anything else, or the judicatories to act otherwise, will be the most blatant breach yet of our denomination's "exhausted reservoir of trust" and will be a powerful justification for the evangelical churches to seek separation.

- John T. Salley

...

Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:00:00 +0100

As long as the word 'arguably' is operative, then I agree with Rev. Jones that the AI 'arguably' exceeds the authority of a General Assembly. I do not quite believe it does, but I believe one can argue that case with integrity. However, I believe the basic TTF argument that G-6.0106b is subject to G-6.0108 - which refers to departures from 'essentials of Reformed faith and polity' - is properly be the subject of an AI. Ultimately the text of the AI didn't bother me; the rationale did, in that I felt it was stretching our history. In my opinion it was just unfortunate that the PUP report invoked the reference to scruples. To me, in simplest terms, 'scrupling' is the completion of the sentence: 'I cannot in good conscience (insert scruple).' The sentence 'I cannot in good conscience practice chastity in singleness' doesn't really fit for me, which is why PUP's use of 'scruples' bothered me. - Richard Hong

...

Thu, 29 Jun 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Perhaps it's because I'm dense or because I haven't read closely but where is this language about scrupling trumping constitutionality? Is it a presumption based on the language about essentialness? My read is that constitutionality is upheld in the amended PUP AI over 'local' essentialness or lack there of. Don't worry about hurting my feelings, I am seeking enlightenment. - Cameron Mott

...

Thu, 29 Jun 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Apologies to Mr. Hong for stating he was confused! (I also appreciate his correcting my typos.) In his earlier response, respectfully disagreeing with Mr. Koster, Mr. Hong writes: "a scruple, by implication, is against a REQUIREMENT of the Constitution. If it were not a requirement, no scruple would be necessary. Why would you have to declare a scruple against a 'may' 'might', or 'should'? Scrupling only make sense against a 'shall'." In his latest response he writes in response to me, "Rather, when Rev. Jones says, 'The relatively new notion that the [same] kind of scrupling may be done as to polity is the problem' - he is acknowledging what I believe to be the case: that the PUP report effectively authorizes scrupling of practices. This is not just scrupling revived; it is scrupling revived and expanded. In the end, while Rev. Jones and I would appear to disagree on whether we favor the end result, I don't think we actually disagree on what this new AI will accomplish. And I think we agree that this new AI represents an expansion of 'scrupling' beyond its original place in Presbyterian history." Mr. Hong is right that I oppose what he so accurately calls "scrupling revived and expanded." I would suggest that the inappropriateness of applying this expanded kind of scrupling to mandated or required polity practices is the issue here. If that is what PUP as amended means (and not all of us believe that: see my response at (http://www.presbyweb.com/2006/Viewpoint/0627--Casey+Jones--Conformity+Compliance+Constitution.htm), then an AI authorizing scrupling of polity mandates, requirements, or shalls is a de-facto Amendment of the Constitution and exceeds the authority granted to the Assembly by the Constitution in issuing an AI. This is so because: 1. The Adopting Act is not a part of the Constitution; and 2. Even if it were, as Mr. Hong recognizes, it did not seem to have to do with scruples of polity practices. So even though Mr. Hong may like the result of and the substance of the AI, I wonder if he, as a former polity teacher who had initial questions about PUP, might agree with me that the results he sees from PUP (but which Mr. Koster does not) arguably go beyond what an Assembly can rightly and Constitutionally do in an AI under our Book of Order. - Winfield Jones

...

Thu, 29 Jun 2006 12:00:00 +0100

My point was to state that if scrupling with regard to polity is now acceptable, then the clauses with the word 'shall' become, implicitly, what a candidate would be scrupling. A single 'shall' clause would no longer be a barrier to ordination; rather, the totality of the requirements balanced against the totality of the candidate's faith and life will be the basis for the ordination decision. With due respect to Rev. Jones, I was not 'confused' with regard to the difference between the scrupling of faith and scrupling of polity; in fact, that is one of the reasons I was not entirely enamored of the PUP report despite the fact that I favor GLBT ordination. (I once taught Presbyterian history and polity as an adjunct and at least pretend to understand the limits of scrupling in the context of the Adopting Act of 1729.) Rather, when Rev. Jones says, 'The relatively new notion that the [same] kind of scrupling may be done as to polity is the problem' - he is acknowledging what I believe to be the case: that the PUP report effectively authorizes scrupling of practices. This is not just scrupling revived; it is scrupling revived and expanded. In the end, while Rev. Jones and I would appear to disagree on whether we favor the end result, I don't think we actually disagree on what this new AI will accomplish. And I think we agree that this new AI represents an expansion of 'scrupling' beyond its original place in Presbyterian history. But I'm okay with exploring new territory. In the end, I would rather hope that we will pay less attention to recommendation 5 and pay more attention to the whole report, especially its process. Instead of formulating our responses apart from one another, could we, in our own presbyteries and churches, covenant to gather together with persons of different views and see if we too could eventually come together the way the TTF did? Whoever thought they would come up with a unanimous report? I surely did not. - Richard Hong

...

Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Mr. Hong's response confuses the scrupling of faith and the scruping of polity. In response to Mr. Hong, scrupling originated mainly in the area of theology and belief. If you didn't believe in 'double predestination,' for example, you could scruple. Who knows if your governing body would regard that as an essential in the Westminster standards? Scrupling let you find out. The relatively new notion that the some kind of scrupling may be done as to polity is the problem. Or to put it more succinctly: the notion that a person may scruple not from a polity belief but from a polity practice is the problem. For example a person might scruple the polity mandate of baptisms done only in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Do they mean they disagree theologically with this, but will still follow the practice? (in this case the presbytery might still receive them, but again, it might not.) Or do they mean they disagree theologically but also will not PRACTICE this mandate and instead will baptize in some other name? (in that case they are scrupling a requirment, which in contradiction to Mr. Kong's assertion, cannot be honored by the governing body) - Winfield Jones

...

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:00:00 +0100

I respectfully disagree with Ed Koster's analysis for one simple reason: a scruple, by implication, is against a REQUIREMENT of the Constitution. If it were not a requirement, no scruple would be necessary. Why would you have to declare a scruple against a 'may', 'might', or 'should'? Scrupling only make sense against a 'shall'. The AI means that the 'national standard' is now that exceptions can be granted to national standards. Therefore, I believe that candidates will continue to be ordained in justice-oriented presbyteries, G-6.0106b notwithstanding. - Richard Hong

Elder, Hillsdale Presbyterian Church, Hillsdale, Ks.

Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:00:00 +0100

I would also be interested in hearing more about any differences between what was passed and what was proposed. - Cameron Mott

Pastor, FirstPresbyterian, Orange TX

Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:00:00 +0100

I appreciate the commentary on what has not happened with the AI. My concern is not so much the AI that was finally approved by the GA in its amended state but with reality. The AI may clearly state certain things. The recommendation from the TF was to indeed leave G-6.0106b in place at this time. This it in itself could be claimed, on the surface at least, as a victory for some. Reality or should I say history tells us that PJCs have failed in maintaining that which we have even to this point called the constitution. Repeated cases have been heard and parties that are in clear violation of the constitution have been acquitted. Despite the fact that the AI removes the uncertainty with reference to national standards, the practice will not reflect the requirement. I agree with Mr. Koster that all this is going to be purely symbolic. The reality is that the PCUSA is in a theological crisis; it goes far beyond our constitutional standards and ultimately knocks on the door of our faith and salvation. We are called to "speak the truth in love" yet even truth is up for debate as clearly seen by the saddening stands that the PCUSA continues to make including the theologically ridiculous and redundant, "Trinity Paper." 5May the Rainbow of concentric, light, fluffy bubbles and tickles on the neck at nap time grant you to live in warm fuzziness with all the inwardly beautiful people, in accordance with the good exemplary, take it or leave, make you feel better, teacher, 6so that together you may, if you feel like it, with one politically correct voice give warm fuzzy hugs to the "Waterfall" of our Lord Jesus Christ (I'm sorry but I am not sure if this is still usable as a name for the "Stream of love". (Romans 15:5 - Trinity Paper Version or at least my interpreted version) May God help us! - Sam Knight

...