Tampa Bay
Presbytery
asked to affirm G-6.09106b
GA stated clerk opposes presbyteries'
affirming constitutional requirements
By John H.
Adams
The Layman
Online
Wednesday, November
15, 2006
Presbyteries
responding to calls
for Constitutional enforcement
|
|
Presbytery |
Congs. |
Members |
Actions |
| 1 |
Central Florida |
74 |
29,905 |
Affirmed constitutional
standards |
| 2 |
Donegal |
62 |
22,822 |
Resolution under review
|
| 3 |
Eastminster |
54 |
11,578 |
Seven resolutions under
review |
| 4 |
Holston |
66 |
8,367 |
Referred to Bills and
Overtures |
| 5 |
Mississippi |
46 |
6,205 |
Affirmed constitutional
standards |
| 6 |
Pittsburgh |
153 |
43,855 |
Affirmed constitutional
standards |
| 7 |
Sacramento |
42 |
15,941 |
Affirmed constitutional
standards |
| 8 |
San Diego |
31 |
16,741 |
Affirmed constitutional
standards |
| 9 |
San Francisco |
77 |
28,132 |
Considers competing
proposals |
| 10 |
Scioto Valley |
113 |
23,940 |
Review scheduled |
| 11 |
Sierra Blanca |
22 |
2,162 |
Under review |
| 12 |
Utah |
24 |
4,009 |
Review at Oct. 13-14 meeting
|
| 13 |
Western N.C. |
115 |
19,937 |
Affirmed standards but
approved exemption on case-by-case basis |
| 14 |
Whitewater Valley |
68 |
23,289 |
Second reading Dec. 6 |
| 15 |
South Louisiana |
67 |
10,322 |
Affirmed constitutional
standards |
| 16 |
New Covenant
|
109 |
39,416 |
Affirmed
constitutional standards |
| 17 |
Beaver-Butler |
87 |
15,329 |
Affirmed constitutional
standards |
| 18 |
James |
113 |
28,259 |
Vote on Oct. 10 |
| 19 |
San Joaquin |
34 |
7,980 |
Affirmed constitutional
standards |
| 20 |
Olympia |
50 |
10,800 |
Affirmed constitutional
standards |
| 21 |
Santa Barbara |
30 |
9,378 |
Under review
|
| 22 |
Santa Fe |
43 |
7,118 |
Under review
|
| 23
|
Mid-South
|
65 |
11,023 |
Affirmed
constitutional standards |
| 24 |
Cherokee |
41 |
11,036 |
Under review |
| 25 |
Great Rivers
|
110 |
19,818 |
First reading
Nov. 14 |
| 26 |
Grace |
180 |
45,040 |
First reading
Nov. 10 |
| 27 |
Redstone |
85 |
16,288 |
First reading
Nov. 21 |
| 28 |
Tampa Bay
|
75 |
24,821 |
To be introduced
on floor of presbytery on Nov. 30 |
|
The session of Northeast Presbyterian Church has called on
Tampa Bay Presbytery to approve a resolution to affirm the
constitutional "fidelity/chastity" ordination standard.
The resolution, which also drew support from the sessions of Faith
Presbyterian Church in Seminole and First Presbyterian Church in Bartow,
is the 28th submitted to presbyteries in the Presbyterian Church (USA)
in response to the 2006 General Assembly's authoritative interpretation
that undermines G-6.0106b in the Book of Order.
The resolution was previously presented to the presbytery's Committee on
Ministry and Committee on Preparation for Ministry, but neither
committee acted on it. They said then that they wanted to know what
Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick thought about similar resolutions. It
is scheduled to be reintroduced from the floor during the presbytery's
Nov. 30 meeting.
Kirkpatrick has informed presbytery leaders that he opposes the
resolutions. The Layman Online has received reports from 11 presbyteries
that have approved similar resolutions in spite of his objections.
In a
letter
dated Sept. 8, Kirkpatrick told the stated clerks of the
presbyteries that the resolutions were "of particular concern to
me."
Kirkpatrick, giving his view of the effect of the General Assembly's
authoritative interpretation, argued in effect that ordination standards
that were established and affirmed by the presbyteries in national
referendums are not mandatory. He drew a distinction between other
constitutional requirements – such as the property trust clause,
which he rigidly enforces – and requirements for ordination.
He said, "Examinations are to be conducted based on constitutional
standards established by the whole church, but ordination and
installation decisions are to be made by ordaining bodies based on
whether 'the candidate has departed from essentials of Reformed faith
and polity' (G-6.0108b). Authoritative interpretations can be changed by
new interpretations from the General Assembly Permanent Judicial
Commission or the assembly itself, and presbyteries may send in
overtures seeking such change, but presbyteries cannot set aside, on
their own, standards clearly specified in an already adopted
authoritative interpretation."
In the same letter, Kirkpatrick also opposed:
- "Establishing answers that are required of candidates for
installation and ordination, or determining in advance answers that
will be unacceptable. Ordaining bodies may determine questions they
wish to ask of candidates, but their answers are to be judged on a
case-by-case basis, based on the standards set by the Constitution."
- "Proposals to grant congregations – based on a super
majority vote or other criteria – to leave the denomination
with their property in the event of schism. The General Assembly
Permanent Judicial Commission case, Strong and Bagby v. Synod of
the Mid-South, makes it very clear that presbyteries are the
body of original decision-making in all matters related to
dismissing, dissolving, or transferring congregations and cannot
delegate that authority to a session or congregation. This is to be
done on a case-by-case basis, based on the criteria in G-8 and
especially the standard that any such action should be for the
benefit of the mission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
- "Actions to restrict presbyteries from fulfilling their
G-9.0404d responsibilities to transmit their per-capita assessments
to synods and General Assembly. The authoritative interpretation by
the 211th General Assembly (1999) of G-9.0404d made it clear that
the payment of per capita to higher governing bodies is a presbytery
responsibility 'as long as it has funds available,' and cannot be
contravened because certain sessions wish to have funds withheld.
Presbyteries do not have the authority to change those provisions
without seeking an amendment or new interpretation of the
Constitution."
- "Actions to restrict presbyteries from fulfilling their
G-9.0404d responsibilities to transmit their per capita assessments
to synods and General Assembly. The authoritative interpretation by
the 211th General Assembly (1999) of G-9.0404d made it clear that
the payment of per capita to higher governing bodies is a presbytery
responsibility "as long as it has funds available," and
cannot be contravened because certain sessions wish to have funds
withheld. Presbyteries do not have the authority to change those
provisions without seeking an amendment or new interpretation of the
Constitution."
Kirkpatrick once called G-6.0106b the "law of the church,"
but refused to enforce it. |