General Assembly will consider repealing ordination standard By John H. Adams The Layman Online Wednesday, May 7, 2003 When it meets in Denver on May 24-31, the 215th General Assembly will face another battle over the constitutional standard that prohibits the ordination of practicing homosexuals as ministers, elders and deacons. The commissioners' agenda includes three proposals that deal with G-6.0106b, the "fidelity/chastity" clause in the Book of Order. One overture calls for outright repeal of G-6.0106b, which would require a fourth denominationwide referendum since 1997. It also asks the commissioners to declare "of no further force or effect" all pre-G-6.0106b General Assembly statements asserting that homosexual activity is a sin and prohibiting the ordination of those who engage in same-sex activity. The other two proposals – one in the form of a request from a pastor and the other an overture – ask the General Assembly to issue an "authoritative interpretation" that would counter attempts to redefine terms. Using their own definitions for such key words as "chastity," "fidelity," "self-acknowledge" and "repentance," advocates for homosexual ordination now say they can comply with church law and still ordain practicing homosexuals and "marry" same-sex couples. For instance, "chastity" in their lexicon has nothing to do with unmarried people refraining from sex; rather, it describes their self-assessed state of "purity." But the advocates of ordaining homosexuals are not relying only on their own definitions to dismantle church law. They know that the General Assembly Judicial Commission might eventually rule that words mean what they mean and that people are not entitled to redefine terms to justify their defiance of church law. Thus, their principal target is to repeal G-6.0106b and insert a sentence in the constitution that would let presbyteries and sessions decide whom to ordain, notwithstanding whether a candidate for deacon, elder or minister practiced adultery or homosexuality. The new sentence would say a candidate's "suitability to hold office is determined by the governing body where the examination for ordination or installation takes place, guided by scriptural and constitutional standards, under the authority and Lordship of Jesus Christ." In other words, governing bodies would have local option – and nothing written in stone. Based on the results of three denominational referendums on the issue, there appears little chance that G-6.0106b will succumb soon at the polls. In 1997-98, 55 percent of the PCUSA's presbyteries approved the constitutional standard, which had always been considered church law. But the revised Book of Order was hardly off the press before the 210th General Assembly in 1998 expressed its disapproval of the referendum vote and submitted another proposed constitutional amendment that would have rendered G-6.0106b meaningless. Instead, G-6.0106b was reaffirmed by 65 percent of the presbyteries. The 213th General Assembly took one more shot at killing the ordination rule, but missed. Seventy-five percent of the presbyteries voted to keep G-6.0106b in the constitution. The latest call to repeal G-6.0106b came from the Presbytery of Des Moines, with concurrence from the Presbytery of Baltimore. The Advisory Committee on the Constitution has weighed in with a comment on the overture, saying the repeal of G-6.0106b alone would not accomplish what its sponsors want. Likewise, the committee says, a new authoritative interpretation by the General Assembly would be insufficient to terminate the 1978 General Assembly interpretation that declared homosexual activity a sin. Therefore, the committee added, both the repeal of G-6.0106b and the 1978 statement should be on the ballot – as was the case in 2001. James R. Tony, pastor of Palos Park Presbyterian Community Church in Illinois, submitted one of the requests for the General Assembly to issue an authoritative interpretation on what G-6.0106b means. The other request for an authoritative interpretation came from the Presbytery of Donegal. In a letter to the Advisory Committee on the Constitution, Tony noted that "a variety of interpretations of G-6.0106b have appeared which are not consistent with the history of the interpretation of our standards for ordination in the PC (USA), particularly with regard to certain terms contained in that paragraph of the Constitution." He proposed that the General Assembly adopt as its own authoritative interpretation an advisory opinion by Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick. "I have carefully reviewed that advisory opinion and believe the clerk has accurately interpreted the relevant constitutional and ecclesiastical case law relating to 'Chastity and Celibacy,' 'Duties with regard to the Examination of Candidates,' and 'Options available to and Obligations of Governing Bodies when faced with allegedly irregular ordinations/installations,'" Tony said. Parts of Kirkpatrick's advisory opinion, which was issued in December of 2002, were strongly worded answers to people who sought to defy church law by redefining terms. No matter how opponents of G-6.0106b define "chastity," Kirkpatrick said, "The debate is not determinative to the discussion of the ordination of homosexual persons. Sexually active homosexual persons may not be ordained." Kirkpatrick also quoted from the 1978 authoritative interpretation: "For the church to ordain a self-affirming, practicing homosexual person to ministry would be an act in contradiction to its charter and calling in Scripture, setting in motion both within the church and society serious contradictions to the will of Christ." But the Advisory Committee on the Constitution says Kirkpatrick's opinion should not become the authoritative interpretation. "Advisory Opinion # 8 contains no new material. While it does collate in summary several aspects of the effect of G-6.0106b on our polity and practice, it contains only material already in the Constitution, clearly established as authoritative interpretation or embedded in judicial decisions. While it was compiled as guidance to presbyteries and sessions as they consider how the Constitution directs them, to restate it as authoritative interpretation is redundant." The Advisory Committee on the Constitution used the same rationale to declare unnecessary the request from the Presbytery of Donegal. "No authoritative interpretation is needed because the current constitutional documents and related judgments and interpretations are not silent on the issues raised. As stated in the rationale of the overture, words are 'clearly defined in The Book of Confessions.'" While the Advisory Committee on the Constitution opposes proposals that the General Assembly initiate some statement or action to enforce the constitution, it does not oppose the overture calling for repeal. However, the committee, which works closely with Kirkpatrick, does oppose other proposals that would have the General Assembly intervene in constitutional enforcement. The proposals dealing with G-6.0106b are on the agenda of the Assembly Committee on Church Orders and Ministry: Item 04-04 (Tony's request); Item 04-06 (overture from the Presbytery of Des Moines); and Item 04-07 (overture from the Presbytery of Donegal).

Respond to this article

Home · Archives · The Layman · PLC Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links