By Ruling Elder Robert B. Fish.
During its June, 2014 meeting, the 221st General Assembly (GA) issued an Authoritative Interpretation which altered the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s definition of marriage without following the required process for amending its Book of Order. On Feb. 14, the denomination’s highest court, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) ruled that there is no basis to challenge this action.
The decision of the GAPJC was technically correct. One presbytery and the sessions of four separate churches filed a remedial complaint that the input given to the commissioners during the GA from the Advisory Commission on the Constitution was contradictory to the plain language of the Directory of Worship and of Holy Scripture and also contradicted the ACC’s own written opinions. The GAPJC dismissed the case and ruled that they had no authority to correct the GA’s action, even if the allegations were true and that wrong or contradictory advice had been given to commissioners from the ACC.
Organizational chaos and unintended consequences?
In other words, since a body – in this case the General Assembly — has the right to make and interpret its own rules, it may interpret them in a way which is inconsistent with its rules, as long as it follows proper procedure in reaching that inconsistent interpretation. The inconsistent interpretation then becomes the new rule.
While that may seem to result in organizational chaos, it comports with the concept that an organization with the power to establish its rules has the equal power to set them aside or change them. So logically, under this principle, a church can change its bylaws, including the provision that says it can’t change them, because the power to put that provision in in the first place is equal to the power to remove it.
Chaos is only avoided if the organization follows logical procedures in making changes, and otherwise respects its core principles.
If the PCUSA is going to go down this path, it needs to recognize that the principle will apply equally to particular churches, as well. And while they will argue that the difference is that the GA is the highest body in the church judicatory, certain rights are reserved for Presbyteries and local churches. There are no provisions in the PCUSA constitution permitting a presbytery or GA to override a local church’s bylaws.
PCUSA isn’t like the federal government
The GAPJC decision was surprising to some since we are used to our divided form of federal government in which the Supreme Court can invalidate laws found to violate the Constitution. However, for most organizations, including the PCUSA, no such analogy exists. Organizations that use Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised as their parliamentary authority place that responsibility on the organization itself.[1]
In this case, the body itself erred when it decided to adopt an Authoritative Interpretation that allowed for pastors to perform same-sex marriages if permitted by the civil laws of the state. Procedurally, the GA should have operated like this:
- After the offending motion was made, GA Moderator Heath Rada had an obligation to rule that the motion would not be allowed because it violated provisions the Book of Order.
- After he failed to do so, a point of order should have been raised and the moderator would then rule on the point of order, giving his reasons for that ruling.
- Commissioners who disagreed with the ruling could have appealed the ruling and the GA commissioners would vote on the question with a majority vote being needed to overturn the moderator’s ruling.
During the General Assembly debate on the issue, the moderator essentially ruled that while the bylaws explicitly say, “For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship,” that can be interpreted as “two persons.”
Even if there were a point of order, the moderator could rule against it and, if put to a vote, the GA could side with the moderator, thereby creating an Authoritative Interpretation that is not only clearly at odds with the Book of Order, but also the Book of Confessions and Holy Scripture. While one might ask, “how could they do that,” the answer would be “because they could.”
While it was understood from the pre-election responses that Candidate Rada favored allowing homosexual marriages, Moderator Rada had a responsibility to moderate fairly and to rule properly on this issue. Since the GA supported his position, it is now too late to correct that error.
There is a much bigger piece, however. Some might say that the commissioners were confused by the contradictory advice provided by the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) which provided a written statement opposing the Authoritative Interpretation and then provided oral statements before the GA stating the opposite.
As ordained officers of the church they could hardly fail to recall their ordination vows to accept be governed by the church’s polity, to accept the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do and, foremost, to accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as “God’s Word to you.” The church’s polity requires that amendment to the Book of Order would proceed in a particular, orderly process which was not done. The confessions of the church speak of marriage as being between a man and a woman and not between two persons. Christ also spoke plainly about marriage being between a man and a woman.
This action was not unforeseen. The Apostle Paul warned, “Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:30) Sadly, that Scripture was fulfilled by these actions of the 221st General Assembly.
Presbyterians trust that commissioners to the councils of the church will abide by the rules for governing, even though there is no way they can be forced to do so. “Decently and in order” should be expected rather than blatant disregard to the bylaws of the church. However, even more sadly, this precedent sets the stage for further erosion of trust as future GA’s will feel free to bypass the process for amending the governing documents by issuing further statements of “Authoritative Interpretation.”
The 221st GA approved an Authoritative Interpretation that is in contradiction to the Constitution of the PCUSA, to the confessions and to Scripture. This action has caused a great loss of trust between the membership of the PCUSA and the General Assembly. The responsibility for this loss of trust clearly rests with Moderator Heath Rada and the GA commissioners who agreed with his ruling.
The author is a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians. He has served as chairman, parliamentarian, rules chairman or similar roles in numerous volunteer, civic, political, and church settings at local, regional and national levels. He served as clerk of session, a member of his presbytery’s general council and its permanent judicial commission and he was a commissioner to the 202nd General Assembly (1990). He is a board member of the Presbyterian Lay Committee.
[1] “Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws. When the meaning is clear, however, the society, even by a unanimous vote, cannot change that meaning except by amending its bylaws.” (Page 588, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th ed.) Robert’s Rules or Order Newly Revised is the parliamentary authority for the PCUSA.
18 Comments. Leave new
Institutional chaos is also the result of the absence of checks-balances to counteract the accumulation and abuse of power. In this sense the PCUSA is more or less the vassal of the ‘Bishop” GA, whom Louisville/OGA and its un-elected acolytes pack the assembly, sack those who stand in their way, witness the removal of the chair of the Israel BDS commission, and treat 50.5-49.5 pluralities as a land-slide to ram home.
Corrupt, evil, venial does not begin to sum up the situation. But here is the good news, time, after time, after time, after time, we witness everyday and in their every action, the emperor has no cloths. A house of cards awaiting the first stiff breeze.
Robert Fish presented a well thought out line of reasoning but will be a moot point once the amendment passes. Which much to my regret, I feel is a “slam-dunk”. Then where we will Bible believing Presbyterians go for a church home?
We were members of PCUSA for 48 years. We have now found a church that believes in the bible.
This keeps saying the 214th GA issued the AI… Wasn’t it the 221st GA?
::confused::
Leaving one heresy for another! Trading one idolatry for another! Friends, you are Christians, not Presbyterians. Christians. There are many Christian groups out there ready to receive you and your giftedness. Don’t take idolatry to a new church! Leave it with the PCUSA. Choose a church based on the calling of Jesus and leading of the Spirit. It is foolish to leave a heretical church with some of the heresy still tucked into your back pocket! Don’t take your garbage with you. Your allegiance is to Jesus Christ alone – not church branding. “Where will Bible believing Presbyterians go for a church home?” Seriously? The options are limitless – but you must renounce brand idolatry to find Jesus Christ. For the sake of your next church, don’t take your brand idolatry with you…
1. What this clarifies is that the GA is SUPREME–above everything else; politically correct to the core; clueless on the foundational 5 SOLAS of the Reformation.
2. The ONLY relief possible is at the next GA in 2016. Good luck with that with the “PROGRESSIVES” clearly in full control today.
3. By then likely 500+ more congregations, conservatively, will be gone and likely about 500,000 congregants bringing membership down around 1.1 million. But the lobbying offices in Washington DC and at the UN in NY will survive to the bitter end. Got to keep banging on Israel–the ONLY democratic country in the Middle East the Islamist’s want to remove from the face of the earth by any means necessary.
4. By 2020 will the last one’s out of Louisville please turn out the lights.
Former member and ordained elder spanning 70+ years.
The PCUSA is/was part of the “reformed” Church, but those reforms moved us closer to Christ. When our founders added “always reforming”, the intent was to continually move us closer to Jesus, but that phrase has been distorted to now mean “always reforming” to the norms of society. That is not what our founders/organizers intended. I will leave the judgement to Christ, but for me and my house, find it time, after 4 generations in my family in the Presbyterian Church, to find a new place in Christ’s Church that believes fully and practices God’s Holy Word.
It’s a shame Dana, but there are times in our lives when we have to realize we are followers of Jesus and not of the PCUSA. You are right on! Keep the faith.
I was there as a Commissioner watching and hearing the whole debacle. Many of us recognized the impropriety of the actions taking place and the bias of the Moderator. We raised issues on the floor and filed objections. As you can see, to no avail. I lost all confidence in the Moderator and the Stated Clerk for failing to prevent the AI in clear opposition to the Book of Order. It is unfortunate, but they are leading the crowd down the path to schism when we need unity in Christ.
I cannot agree more! There are thousands of Protestant denominations to choose from. On one end are the Unitarians and on the other are the hard-right Evangelical literalists. If the hierarchy of the PCUSA is so objectionable let your feet do the walking away from the pew.
Thank you, Bob, for outlining the procedure which would have been proper and the disjuncture caused by commissioners between the Book of Order, the Confessions, and Scripture. Even if the same-sex marriage passes, it will not change the Confessions or Scripture; so the chaos will continue, apace.
The fix was in at the GA, the progressives were hell bound and determined to shove this crap down everybodys throats, after coming close the last two times.
Now it’s all about intimidating the moderate/conservetive wings of the pcusa, with hanging the trust clause over their heads. This is going to backfire, as more churches win court battles over property. I still think that there’s going to be a mass exodus, maybe not all at once or with great fanfare, you can’t thumb your nose at God, and think there’s no price to pay, either in this life or the life to come.
Some additional information. The Stated Clerk of the PC(USA) has an obligation to review each and every Overture brought up for GA action to see if it is pertinent, and is not out of order. He did not so rule, even after the ACC in its written advice said that it probably was.
As the Commissioner who rose to make the Point of Order on the floor, I can affirm that I did at first request that the Moderator rule this overture out of order.
That was when he asked the Stated Clerk for advice, who then asked the ACC for advice. The advice given was the same that the ACC gave when I raised a Point of Order in the Marriage Committee.
However, the advice given WAS NOT the same advice as the ACC gave in its WRITTEN advice to the General Assembly on the original overture. This is the point on which the Remedial Complaint was brought to the GAPJC, and which they totally ignored in their ruling.
Be that as it may, the advice from the ACC was that it was up to the GA to fix the ‘tension’ between the Constitution and the Overture (and leaving out the fact that Part 1 of the Constitution lists marriage as 1 man & 1 woman throughout).
Thus the Moderator ruled that the overture was not out of order. I then rose to call for a vote on the Moderator’s ruling, which was defeated.
So, all the points listed by R.E. Fish were done. I only wish that RE Fish was on the dais that day to insist that the only action was to rule that it was out of order.
Point of clarification: when I said above that the vote on the Moderator’s ruling was defeated, I should have said the Moderator’s ruling was upheld, and the request to set it aside was defeated.
Yes it was the 221st.
You have choices: EPC, ECO, ARPC …
When people ask why my church withholds per capita and suspended all missional support to the PCUSA, the common response others are expecting would be something related to LGBT issues, marriage, and a host of ideological left outrages. Those matters cited are not the reason. We honestly could live with such if the matters were property addressed in the councils and courts of the church, and the rule of law obeyed.
The real issue lies in that in the contemporary PCUSA you have complete absence of the rule of law, checks and balances to avoid the corruption and abuse of power. As the episode at Detroit and the AI, but also Pittsburgh 2012 and the non-geographic presbytery proposal. Power in the PCUSA is wielded crudely, arbitrarily depending who has the gavel and the floor at any given moment. Dissent is silenced and those who oppose the pre-ordained results intimidated and abused. Are these the marks of a Godly church or Godly people? I think not.
To remit any money or resources to said organization only enables and supports the institutional pathology. In fact that act of withholding and redirecting is the most loving and kind way to respond to power run amok, leaders remote, isolated and imperial in both behavior and demeanor. And very, very reformed.
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Where can you go from the PC(USA)? Don’t forget the PCA–they do not ordain women, but compared to the issues at stake in the PC(USA), women’s ordination is a second or third tier concern. (I have been a member of the PCA for over 8 years; let me say that after 14 years of committee meetings and 10 years of presbytery meetings, I don’t miss not serving the church in an ordained position.