Become our Friend on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Font Size: +A -A RESET
How It Is That the General Assembly Did Not Authorize "Local Option"
Written by Edward Koster   
Monday, 10 July 2006 12:00

Since the General Assembly approved the Peace, Unity, and Purity Task Force report, some of the press have been reporting that it has approved the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons at the discretion of local ordaining bodies.  The press have it wrong, and in fact the Authoritative Interpretation approved by the General Assembly has probably made it less likely that such ordinations will be allowed. 

Since the General Assembly approved the Peace, Unity, and Purity Task Force report, some of the press have been reporting that it has approved the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons at the discretion of local ordaining bodies.  The press have it wrong, and in fact the Authoritative Interpretation approved by the General Assembly has probably made it less likely that such ordinations will be allowed. 

The issue is the Authoritative Interpretation that was proposed by the Task Force.  In Recommendation 5 and its antecedent arguments, the TF suggested that a person examined for ordination could declare "scruples" about a provision of the Constitution.  A Presbytery could determine if the declared scruple was an essential, and if not, could ordain the candidate in spite of the declaration.  The AI proposed that control would be through the means of judicial process laid out in the Rules of Discipline.  The problem was the AI authorized a PJC on appeal to consider only whether the "ordaining/installing body ha[d] conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain . . ." 

My concerns about this were so great that I wrote an article in opposition to the proposed Authoritative Interpretation, which was published by the Presbyterian Outlook on April 24th, 2006. http://www.pres-outlook.com/tabid/739/Article/1528/Default.aspx.  I wrote the article because I believed the proposed AI could ultimately permit the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons, authorized in a top-down decision that evades the objections of the presbyteries.

The Ecclesiology Committee of the General Assembly amended the Authoritative Interpretation in a way that significantly changed its effect.  It added the underlined clause to the original proposal to say a reviewing body would determine: 

Whether the examination complies with the constitution of the PCUSA, and whether the ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing bodies.

The General Assembly further amended it during the debate, so that the initial clause now reads,

Whether the examination and ordination and installation decision comply with the constitution of the PCUSA, and . . . .

Where the original Authoritative Interpretation could very well have resulted in "local option"--if the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission would have supported the original wording on appeal--the Authoritative Interpretation as approved probably makes it less likely that a governing body is authorized to ordain a person declaring scruples on the two ordination standards now in place: Until now, any appeal had to persuade a PJC that a governing body was required to follow the national standards; now, that need not be argued because it is explicit in the Authoritative Interpretation.

So it turns out that the AI does not do what some press are reporting and others are claiming.  Its effect is highly symbolic, because people are assuming that what was approved is what was proposed, but its real effect on the enforcement of ordination standards will likely be minimal. 

Though the AI does not authorize "local option" for the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons, it probably will generate a lot of activity and some confusion.  Certainly, some governing bodies will test it by approving the ordination of those who have declared their scruples on either the ordination of women or G-6.0106b, which now will likely be rebuffed on appeal.  Difficulties may arise, however, when governing bodies must respond when candidates declare scruples on items that have not been recognized as church-wide standards.  It is too early to tell what will happen here, but it is a process not used in recent memory.  Exactly how sessions and presbyteries will handle these declarations of scruples is uncertain, and we do not know what kinds of unforeseen consequences there may be.

As I write, it is barely 24 hours since the General Assembly approved the PUP Task Force Report.  Recommendations 1-4 were adopted quickly and overwhelmingly, while Recommendations 5-7--which included the AI--were heavily debated.  As I sit in the Assembly and hear comments made, as I have and overhear conversations, and as I see and read various responses, I believe I see a lot of hysteria.  The responses claim something happened that in fact has not;  the General Assembly has not given ordaining bodies authority to ordain candidates who declare scruples on the ordination of women or G-6.0106b.  In truth, the Authoritative Interpretation as finally approved strengthens the church-wide standards now in place.

Trackback(0)
Your Responses (35)Add Comment
feedSubscribe to this comment's feed
Response from Cameron Mott, September 12, 2006
...
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?
Response from v c scott, August 10, 2006
member SHPC
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.
Response from John T. Salley, August 01, 2006
pastor, Center United Presbyterian Church

As a commissioner
to the 217th 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 217th
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.


 


Response from Richard Hong, June 30, 2006
...
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.
Response from Cameron Mott, June 29, 2006
...
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.
Response from Winfield Jones, June 29, 2006
...
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.
Response from Richard Hong, June 29, 2006
...
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.
Response from Winfield Jones, June 28, 2006
...
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)
Response from Richard Hong, June 27, 2006
...
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.
Response from Cameron Mott, June 24, 2006
Elder, Hillsdale Presbyterian Church, Hillsdale, Ks.
I would also be interested in hearing more about any differences between what was passed and what was proposed.
Response from Sam Knight, June 24, 2006
Pastor, FirstPresbyterian, Orange TX
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!
Response from William Clough, June 23, 2006
...
Whatever your intentions, the past 30 years make it painfully clear that the "gay is OK" minority faction of the church will not settle for anything less than a Pyrrhic victory. Your point is theologically and emotionally sound, but poltically naive.

Allowing Presbyteries to scruple over ordination standards will just perpetuate the same old fight. The pro-gay side will simply move the venue to complaints of discrimination when a church or Presbytery refuses to accept an ordained gay person.
Response from Matthew Paul, June 23, 2006
Pastor, Gateway Presbyterian Church
I appreciate Mr. Koster's comments regarding the PUP report and the accompanying AI found in recommendation 5. In reading the responses to his comments, it sure seems to me that folks are quick to fear the worst (or hope the 'best' depending on one's perspective)--that the AI will lead to a standardless ordination process. Perhaps I am being naive about this, but I have confidence in my Presbyterian brothers and sisters that this AI will be received in the context of promoting dialogue between members of a deeply divided denomination. That means that we will all continue to respect and uphold the constitution (which I believe has not changed, by the way) while voicing our concerns and convictions in the spirit of grace and mutual understanding. This AI does not resolve the issue of homosexual ordination but it is my sincere hope that it will provide a more open forum to communicate our differences and lead our ordaining bodies to work with greater care and diligence. Please folks, let's not jump to conclusions before this AI has even had a chance to take effect.
Response from Lawrence Wood, June 23, 2006
...
I responded yesterday with a lack of grace toward Ed Koster, a reflection of my anger over the approval of the PUP report. My comments were uncalled for. While I don't agree the amended AI strengthens the church-wide standards now in place, my response was both unncessary and I apologize to Ed. Larry
Response from John Shuck, June 23, 2006
Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Elizabethton, Tennessee
Dear Editor,

I believe Edward Koster is mistaken when he suggests that it will be less likely that 'non-celibate homosexual persons' will be ordained because of the General Assembly decision. I wrote an essay that was published in the Witherspoon Society's Network News ('Not Justice, Not Progress: Just the Same Second-Class Status') http://www.witherspoonsociety....ustice.htm
critical of the PUP report because I feel the discriminatory policies used against LGBT persons need to be removed. As it turned out, the liberals settled for PUP. Everyone knows, commissioners and advocates on both sides, that the proposed AI was the bone thrown out to the liberals. Rather than push to remove G-6.0106b and the previous AI, liberals and moderates were persuaded to compromise with the PUP report. The one sentence amendment Mr. Koster speaks about will not change that. Because of the 217th GA, congregations and presbyteries all across this nation will be ordaining and installing openly self-affirming practicing and perfected gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons and will do it legally by declaring a scruple to what many of us believe is a discriminatory and unjust policy. The Good Ship PCUSA is changing course, slowly but surely, toward more hospitable waters. Thanks be to God.

John Shuck, Pastor
First Presbyterian Church
Elizabethton, Tennessee
423-543-7737
www.1stpres-eliz.org
Response from Richard Brondyke, June 23, 2006
Pastor, Fort Square Presbyterian Church
Mr. koster clearly believe s that the amendments with respect to review made a difference in the effect of REcommendation 5. I am deeply cnocerned that is has not for the following reason: the review will examine whether the ordinand has complied with the constitution: but the constitution has now changed, as interpreted by the new Authoritative Interpretation! In fact, under the constitution, the ordaining body will be able to determine whether or not a part of the Constitution is essential.. and if it is not, ordination is now permitted. So a review of an action would show that, if in fact, the ordaining body took into consideration what they believed to be essential, the ordination would be allowable... if the ordaining body deemed it so. This no happy moment for the PCUSA.. in fact, local option has been institutionalized.
Response from Bill McSpadden, June 23, 2006
...
The fidelity and chastity clause in the constitution is pretty clear. It is like 2+2=4. This is what we the people through our representative govt voted on a few years ago. There is no need for any interpretation here. There is no ambiguity. It is like 2+2=4. The article written here by Koster, I believe is wrong. The ordination standards are not strengthened by this PUP vote. The fidelity chastity clause needs no strengthening. It was 100% clear. Now, it seems the AI (Authoritative Interpretation) does indeed allow the local presbyteries to decide whether or not they believe 2+2=4. And remember who pushed this, remember who was so in favor of it, remember who is rejoicing about this. The liberals, who want to ordain people - who think sin is not sin - are the ones who wanted this passed. This whole PUP thing was not needed. It was only desired by the far-left - far,far left - the way-out-in-left-field left. Remember that the common people, when the vote was placed in front of the local presbyteries, a few short years ago, voted to keep the fidelity/chastity clause. Now the same people who wanted to abolish it then (and lost) are the same ones who pushed for this PUP. Peace, Unity, and Purity? There is no Peace here.
Response from Jeffrey Ogden, June 23, 2006
Pastor, Orestimba Presbyterian
I disagree with Mr. Koster's analysis. By passing an AI of G-6.0106 which says 'scrupling' is an acceptible constitutional practice, any PJC can now say that an ordination or installation descision of a candidate who 'scruples' is constitutional.
The AI to allow scrupling guts any language about affirming the constitution because it essentially says that unconstitutional behavior is okay. Constitutional behavior is whatever the ordaining body thinks it is. There is no king in Israel and everyone does what is right in his own eyes.
Response from Jonathan Van Deventer, June 23, 2006
Pastor, Johns Island Presbyterian Church
In the sermon on the Mount, Matthew tells us that Jesus declared 'Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.' James echoes this same sentiment in his letter, when he writes '...let your yes be yes and your no be no....'
As nearly as I can tell, our General Assembly appears to have adopted a report whose language is so convoluted and so subtle that a battalion of ecclesiastical pharisees will spend the forseeable future arguing over whether we have said 'yes' or 'no,' as well as whether 'yes' really MEANS yes, and 'no' really MEANS no.
All the while, the numbers of Christians who leave the PCUSA will continue to escalate. I am reminded of all the old images about fiddling while Rome burns, or about rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We're avoiding the real issue.
Hidden behind all of the polemics and the politics, the foundational question for the PCUSA remains unanswered:

What is the authority of Scripture for our denomination?

As a denomination,we have a masterful tendency to force a 'yes' from God's Word where it really says 'no,' and an equally developed skill in forcing a 'no' where God's Word really says 'yes.'
Until the day that we take our own theology seriously enough to be shaped by the Word of God, rather than shaping it to suit our own purposes, I fear that we will glorify God most by our denominational decline, rather than by our faithfulness and growth.
May God defend us and deliver us from our stubborn pride and idolatry. And by 'us' I mean ALL of us - including me.
Response from Richard Warren, June 23, 2006
...
It was very helpful in correcting the impression I gained in reading an article in the Sacramento Bee this past week which stated that the General Assembly had granted authority to local congregations.
Response from Daniel Frank, June 23, 2006
...
The commitment of the PCUSA to strengthen its authoritive interpretation of the constitution that does not allow for the ordination of active and openly declaritive homosexuals is a step in the right direction and will help to bring confidence back the the local church.
Response from Howard Tice, June 22, 2006
Elder, Southwest Presbyterian Church - Wichita, Kansas
I only hope you are right, because it is this issue that threatens to divide the church, and those who keep challenging the ordination standards in order to normalize the unrepentant sinful homosexual behavior and have these people in positions of authority in the church are the ones who are making the division a possibility. Those who stand up for biblical standards and the historical Constitution and Confessions of the church are trying to not just keep us together, but keep us biblically sound.
Response from Lawrence Wood, June 22, 2006
...
What a whitewash! Koster, do you believe we conservatives are that stupid?
L Wood, Atlanta, Ga
Response from Jill Tolbert, June 22, 2006
Salvation is by grace alone
With all due respect, Mr. Grogan, a reformed understanding of salvation does not affirm an if / then theology. You write '...if one truly repents, accepts Christ as Lord & Savior and is baptized in his holy name they will be saved.' As a reformed Christian and a lifelong Presbyterian, I believe, along with Luther, Calvin, and the many Presbyterians with whom I recently gathered in Birmingham, that we are saved by grace alone, not by 'accept(ing) Christ as Lord & Savior,' nor by baptism. Any behavior or action on our part is in grateful response to the amazine gift of salvation which we have through Christ Jesus. If you call yourself a Presbyterian, then you are, by default, a reformed Christian. And if so, then perhaps you should brush up on your reformed theology. The 2nd Helvetic Confession and the Westminster Confession, along with their scriptural references, would be an excellent place to start.

And while you're at it, regarding Leviticus 20:13, go ahead and check out the entire Levitical code. I hardly think it applies in full to us today, so how can you justify pulling one verse out and lifting it up as a behavioral ideal? Because of God's grace in Jesus Christ, we are no longer subject to the 'old' law. Thanks be to God!
Response from Jill Tolbert, June 22, 2006
Salvation is by grace alone
With all due respect, Mr. Grogan, a reformed understanding of salvation does not affirm an if / then theology. You write '...if one truly repents, accepts Christ as Lord & Savior and is baptized in his holy name they will be saved.' As a reformed Christian and a lifelong Presbyterian, I believe, along with Luther, Calvin, and the many Presbyterians with whom I recently gathered in Birmingham, that we are saved by grace alone, not by 'accept(ing) Christ as Lord & Savior,' nor by baptism. Any behavior or action on our part is in grateful response to the amazine gift of salvation which we have through Christ Jesus. If you call yourself a Presbyterian, then you are, by default, a reformed Christian. And if so, then perhaps you should brush up on your reformed theology. The 2nd Helvetic Confession and the Westminster Confession, along with their scriptural references, would be an excellent place to start.

And while you're at it, regarding Leviticus 20:13, go ahead and check out the entire Levitical code. I hardly think it applies in full to us today, so how can you justify pulling one verse out and lifting it up as a behavioral ideal? Because of God's grace in Jesus Christ, we are no longer subject to the 'old' law. Thanks be to God!
Response from Sid Leak, June 22, 2006
Pastor, First Presbyterian Church
I am glad for Ed's analysis of the amended AI that passed the Assembly. We find his most important words in the second paragraph, last sentence, '...a PJC on appeal ....' My question: Unless someone appeals the proposed scrupled ordination/installation to a higher governing body, does not the ordination/installation still stand, and, thereby, constitute local option?
Response from Brian Ahier, June 22, 2006
Elder, Gateway Presbyterian Church
By adopting an Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108, General Assembly (GA) has unquestionably changed the Constitution of the PCUSA. By virtue of this Authoritative Interpretation (AI), the Constitution today means something different than it did yesterday. That means that today what is constitutional is not the same as what was constitutional yesterday. Of paramount concern is whether ordaining governing bodies (sessions or presbyteries) are now allowed to ordain or install candidates who are not in compliance with ordination standards, including the behavioral standards of G-6.0106b. We cannot know for certain at this time how church courts will interpret this new AI, and we choose not to speculate. Instead, we can only consider the meaning of this AI on the basis of its actual wording, taken in light of the rest of the Constitution and other pertinent authoritative interpretations by GA and the GA Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC). The Discipline Task Force of the Presbyterian Coalition has carefully reviewed the newly adopted AI. In our considered opinion, the wording of this AI can mean that a candidate may be ordained, notwithstanding a departure from the behavior requirements of G-6.0106b and other ordination standards. The amendment of the AI does not undo the damage to our constitutional fabric done by part c(2) of this AI.
Response from Carl Van Valkenburg, June 22, 2006
...
I really appreciate JR Tony's clarifications. It was certainly confusing to read such an apparently crucial amendment, yet note the lack of reaction to it by those opposed or those in favor of the recommendation, or even the mention of the amendment by 'Outlook' on this site.

Perhaps someone could explain why, with Section c.(2)presently in the constitution, Recommendation 5 was pertinent to either side in this debate to begin with.

Does the readership of this item know of an avowedly L, G, B or T individual being ordained with the explicit citation of Section c.(2)?
Response from Paul Walter, June 22, 2006
Clerk of Session, Skidaway Island Presbyterian Church
My main concern with PUP is that the GA has allowed an amendment to the Book of Order by a process not recognized by our Constitution. One cannot by an AI declare that blue is red. Yet, that is what this seems to do. In the Book of Order the words 'shall,' 'should,' are clearly defined. The Church, by its constitutional processes has decided that in 6.0106b the requirement is essential, using the word 'shall.' Thus, the church has spoken and whether we like it or not, the church has said that this is essential. We have a process for amending the Book of Order and it was not followed in this case. Whether or not one likes 6.0106b this action is a step away from a constitutional, connectional church to a form of congregationalism. Whether the author of this piece, Mr. Koster, is right or wrong time will tell. My guess is that the denomination will pay dearly for this before we even have a chance to find out whether Mr. Koster is correct. Many of us will work hard to keep this wonderful denomination together, but the GA has not made our work any easier.
Response from jim Hazlett, June 22, 2006
Greater Unity?
Do we veteran Presbyters, who have served on our share of Presbytery committees, really believe that the recommendations coming from our friends who served on the PUP task force, will really bring greater peace, unity and purity to our pluralistic presbyteries? In recent decades, we the PCUSA have allowed the creepy crawley realities of diversity to increasingly trump the unity that we say we believe to be God's will for followers of Jesus. The reality facing us now is the mantra of 'scruples' by those who reject the authority of God's written word on sexual ethics, as they embrace their idols of 'inclusivity'. Haberer's positive spin on G.A.'s action gives me little hope about the Constitutional double-talk we will hear more and more at Presbytery microphones. Jim Hazlett, The Dalles, Oregon
Response from Winfield Jones, June 22, 2006
...
As an evangelical and an overture advocate to the ecclesiology committee at the 217th GA, I had the opportunity to observe two very principled presbytery stated clerks, who, though they would both probably favor the removal of G-6.0106 b from the Form of Government on substantive grounds, opposed and/or questioned
recommendation 5 of the PUP report as originally presented both because of the way it attempted to create a de facto amendment to the Constitution while calling itself an authoritative interpretation and because of the unintended consequences it might have on other sections of the Constitution. Ed Koster,
stated clerk of Detroit presbytery, was one of those persons. Ed's opinion just published in the Outlook that the amended PUP report now makes ordination of practicing homosexuals more difficult should be seriously considered by
evangelicals if for no other reason than because of his earlier principled objection to Recommendation 5 of the PUP report.

I would be very interested to hear also the view of Dan Saperstein, stated clerk of Peaks and Prairies presbytery, who also, on very principled grounds, opposed recommendation 5' s hasty approval before many questions could be answered.

My own view is that Ed Koster's assertion could be true, (and I hope it is) but I have three major reservations:

1. It seems to me that there is language elsewhere in the PUP report that may still support the notion of national standards applied by local bodies and which may still incline the totality of Recommendation 5 towards permitting examining bodies to decide on essentials of polity even as to polity items which are "shalls" or requirements. I may write more about this in a subsequent article.

2. If Mr. Koster is right that the amendment in ecclesiology committee and the amendment on the floor really changed Recommendation 5, then it would appear that the majority at the Assembly was (unwittingly?) willing to give away what I
feel was one of the main goals of the PUP compromise--opening the door to local sessions and presbyteries having the option to ordain at least a few practicing gays. But it might be that Koster is right and that (from my perspective) God in his sovereignty managed to get language into the amended Recommendation 5 which any reasonable person would interpret as Mr. Koster does. But I simply note that
Mr. Koster's earlier quite reasonable thoughts about the problems with the original Recommendation 5 were rejected by many if not most of those in national leadership, and so I find some reason to doubt that they will now accept the apparently very reasonable argument he now makes in the Outlook....

3. My own experience in watching the ACC's response to the original PUP report and its interaction with the ecclesiology committee was quite discouraging. I believe we have a postmodern ACC which a. does not view the Constitution in anything approaching a strict mode which takes seriously the plain language of
the Constitution; and b. may actually violate the intent of the Constitution because its membership does not appear to mirror the diversity of the church as required by the Constitution's insistence that various "theological positions consistent with the Reformed tradition" be represented.

Even if Ed Koster is right, and an unbiased ACC or PJC would agree with him, I must say in all sadness but in all sincerity, that I am not convinced that an ACC which, at the plenary debate at GA said (if my memory serves) that this amendment did not really change recommendation 5, would subsequently agree with
Mr. Koster that it does. I do understand that the GA PJC and not the ACC would now be more likely to be in the position of interpreting what the amended Recommendation 5 means, but having been burned by the ACC, please excuse me if I wonder how fair the GA PJC might be....

If the Assembly Committees on Nominations and Representation really did their jobs by seeing that proportional numbers of evangelicals were included on the GA PJC and the ACC, then it would be easier to believe that the plain language Mr. Koster thinks he sees would in fact be affirmed by those bodies, who, after all, have the great and humbling power in an increasingly post-modern environment of deciding and declaring what words really mean. Of equal importance, it is vital for the church's life that the GA ACC and PJC also contain more principled people like Dan Saperstein and Ed Koster, who, regardless of their theology,
refuse to let their own policy desires intrude into the area of interpreting the plain meaning of the Constitution. This would certainly increase trust, which as so many point out, is a commodity of which we as a church are in need.

Winfield Casey Jones
Pearland, TX.
 
Response from John Erthein, June 22, 2006
Pastor, Elderton Presbyterian Church
I had the pleasure of seeing my friend Ed Koster at General Assembly over the past week, and, as always, I appreciate his comments and perspective as he has shared them with the Outlook. Knowing Ed as I do, I have no doubt that Ed is speaking sincerely and with the best interests of the denomination at heart.

Having said that, I am not certain that his view is actually going to prevail over the coming days. As an observer of the General Assembly, I heard more than one Commissioner speak in favor of PUP Report Recommendation 5 because they favor LGBT ordination. After the vote, the Covenant Network also reacted favorably. It seems to me that if people supporting LGBT ordination also support PUP Recommendation 5, then logically PUP Recommendation 5 - even in its amended form - makes such ordinations more likely. The Renewal groups, opposed to LGBT ordinations, have unanimously stated that to the case as well.

At the very least, PUP Recommendation 5 has introduced a new level of confusion to our denominational life. If people cannot even agree on what passage of Recommendation 5 means, our life together as Presbyterians will become even more contentious and divisive.

In short, I hope Ed Koster is right, but I fear he is wrong.
Response from Timothy McQuade, June 22, 2006
...
I don't buy your reasoning. The AI will unltimately result in a clogged judicial process, confusion, as well as local option being exercised. I'm deeply saddened by the GA's actions and remain so after reading your article. The national standards remain on paper only.
Response from JR Tony, June 22, 2006
Senior Pastor, Palos Park Presbyterian Community Church
Dear Editor,

This Discipline Task Force has written its own analysis. With all our hearts we wish Ed Koster were right. It is with great regret we must offer a different analysis. At this time it is futile to speculate what a PJC might do with this AI. All we can go on is the wording of the document itself. To that we might note the testimony of the ACC and the TTF on PUP. They found it to be consistent with the document as proposed and NOT a change from its original intent, as Mr. Koster suggests.

The interpretation of the Constitution changed in a single vote of 298 commissioners -- an underwhelming reception in light of the power that brought it to this GA. The words added refer to the constitution as understood in section c. (2). Section c. (2) says in plain language that ordaining governing bodies can declare a standard of the church non-essential for particular candidates to be ordained. That will be the standard of 'complying with the constitution' in the amended section d.

Friday the Constitution does not mean what it meant on Monday, according to this GA. Mr. Koster's fatal flaw is in his use of the words 'standards' when he says 'required to follow the national standards.' The amendment does not say 'standards.' Rather it says 'constitution.' The 'standards' may not have changed, but the understanding of the meaning of the constitution has been altered with the adoption of this AI.

Please consider publishing our different analysis in the interest of fairness.

Thanks,

James R. Tony
Response from Terry Grogan, June 22, 2006
Gay Ordination
This whole thing is bizarre and stupid!

The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin - just like adultry, stealing, etc.

Why on earth are these so-called 'Believers' even debating this kind of thing?

These people need to get back to just teaching the Gospel.

They have all forgotten their mission.

The best way to love anyone is to share the Gospel with them - even when it 'hurts'.

Being homosexual is a sin - but, if one truly repents, accepts Christ as Lord & Savior and is baptized in his holy name they will be saved.

See Levetivcus 20:13, Romans 1, 1 Corinthian 6.


Write a Response
smaller | bigger
NOTE: Your response to an article will be reviewed by staff before it is made available to the public for reading. The delay may be a few minutes or it may be as long as 24 hours.

busy
 
Banner
Join Our News Alerts Mailing List
Email:
Banner
Banner
Banner