General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission Rulings uphold 'fidelity/chastity' standard for candidates being considered for ordination By Craig M. Kibler Staff Writer The Layman Online Thursday, February 14, 2008 In two cases, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission has ruled that presbyteries considering candidates for ordination or installation cannot depart from the "fidelity/chastity" requirement in the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s Book of Order. The court also ruled that, "while the General Assembly and the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission may interpret ordination standards set forth in the Book of Confessions and the Form of Government, the authoritative interpretation of the Theological Task on the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church adopted by the 217th General Assembly did not (and constitutionally could not) change any ordination standard, including the requirements set forth in G-6.0106b." Both rulings, each without dissent, are heartening to evangelicals – who have argued that G-6.0106b, the "fidelity/chastity" ordination standard in the Book of Order, should be followed – while dealing a blow to those who have relied on the scrupling permitted under an authoritative interpretation approved as part of the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity by the 217th General Assembly in 2006. Two recent cases, those of Lisa Larges and Paul Capetz, relied on scrupling G-6.0106b. In each case, the presbyteries approved the candidates. Both cases, one in San Francisco Presbytery and the other in the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area, face appeals. Olympia Presbytery In the two cases decided by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission on Feb. 11 – Buescher, et al v. Olympia Presbytery (218-09) and Bush, et al v. Pittsburgh Presbytery (218-10), respectively – rejected appeals that sought to have the presbyteries rescind resolutions that stated they would not consider ordaining men and women whose behavior did not conform to the "fidelity/chastity" ordination standard. In the first case, Olympia Presbytery on Sept. 21, 2006, approved the following resolution: We hereby declare that in our discernment of the movement of the Holy Spirit, every mandate of the Book of Order (2005-2007) is an essential of Reformed polity. Therefore, any violation of a mandate of the Book of Order (2005-2007) constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed polity and thus presents a bar to ordination and installation. After this action, according to the history of the case outlined by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, Buescher, et al., filed a complaint with the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Alaska-Northwest, seeking remedial relief. In a March 20, 2007, decision, the synod affirmed the action of the presbytery. Subsequently, Buescher, et al., filed an appeal with the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission. In dealing a blow to the authoritative interpretation contained in the PUP report, the court wrote as follows: The authoritative interpretation correctly states that the standards for ordination of officers in the Presbyterian Church (USA) are set forth in the Book of Confessions and the Form of Government. Section "b" of the authoritative interpretation states that "these standards are determined by the whole church, after the careful study of Scripture and theology, solely by the constitutional process of approval by the General Assembly with the approval of the presbyteries" (emphasis added). The constitutional process for amending ordination standards (or any other provision of the Constitution) is defined in Chapter 18 of the Form of Government. While the General Assembly and the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission may interpret these standards, the authoritative interpretation did not (and constitutionally could not) change any ordination standard, including the requirements set forth in G-6.0106b. Similarly, no lower governing body can constitutionally define, diminish, augment or modify standards for ordination and installation of church officers. The court, citing its decision in the Pittsburgh Presbytery case, also wrote: While G-1.0301 permits broad freedom of conscience for members of the church, "in becoming a candidate or officer of the Presbyterian Church (USA) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds" (G-6.0108b). G-6.0108a defines the limits of this freedom of conscience for ordained church officers. It first states the requirement that all church officers adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity as expressed in the Book of Confessions and the Form of Government. It next assures freedom of conscience, but only with respect to the interpretation of Scripture. Even then, freedom of conscience is permitted only to the extent that it (a) is not a serious departure from the essential standards of Reformed faith and polity, (b) does not infringe on the rights and views of others, and (c) does not obstruct the constitutional governance of the church. Pittsburgh Presbytery In the second case, Pittsburgh Presbytery on Oct. 12, 2006, approved the following resolution: In its discernment of the essentials of Reformed polity and for the sake of the peace, unity, and purity of the church, Pittsburgh Presbytery: Adopts the principle that compliance with the standards for ordination approved by the Presbyterian Church (USA) in the Book of Order is an essential of Reformed polity. Therefore, any departure from the standards of ordination expressed in the Book of Order will bar a candidate from ordination and/or installation by this governing body. Provisions of the Book of Order are signified as being standards by use of the term "shall," "is/are to be," "requirement" or equivalent expression; and Resolves that no exceptions to the requirement that all Ministers of Word and sacrament must "live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in chastity in singleness" (Book of Order, G-6.0106b) will be allowed within the jurisdiction of this presbytery; and Resolves that Ministers of Word and sacrament shall be prohibited from conducting same-sex marriages within the jurisdiction of this presbytery. On Nov. 22, 2006, Bush, et al., alleging irregularities, filed a complaint with the Synod of the Trinity, whose permanent judicial commission sustained the first three irregularities, but struck only part two of the resolution. Subsequently, Bush, et al., appealed to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission. In its decision, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission ruled that "candidates and examining bodies must follow G-6.0108 in reaching determinations as to whether the candidates for ordination and/or installation have departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity. Such determinations do not rest on distinguishing "belief" and "behavior," and do not permit departure from the "fidelity and chastity" requirement found in G-6.0106b." The court also wrote that, "Ordaining and installing bodies must examine candidates for ordination and/or installation individually. The examining body is best suited to make decisions about the candidate's fitness for office, and factual determinations by examining bodies are entitled to deference by higher governing bodies in any review process." 'Essentials' In both cases, responding to presbyteries approving resolutions regarding statements of "Essentials of Reformed Faith and Polity," the court wrote that, "Attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as 'essentials of Reformed faith and polity' are confusing and unnecessary." "G-6.0108a sets forth standards that apply to the whole church," the court wrote. "These standards are binding on and must be followed by all governing bodies, church officers and candidates for church office. Adopting statements about mandatory provisions of the Book of Order for ordination and installation of officers falsely implies that other governing bodies might not be similarly bound; that is, that they might choose to restate or interpret the provisions differently, fail to adopt such statements, or possess some flexibility with respect to such provisions." Third case In a third case, 1st Presbyterian Church, Washington, et al v. Washington Presbytery (218-15), the court affirmed a ruling by the Synod of the Trinity that a statement of essentials of the Reformed faith procedurally was unconstitutional – as the court wrote in both the Olympia and Pittsburgh cases. It also wrote that the Adopting Act of 1729 "provides significant guidance for the application and interpretation of G-6.0108a & b as to essentials." "The Adopting Act of the nineteenth of September, 1729, incorporates the term 'necessary and essential' four times," the court wrote. "Moreover, it provides instructive historical guidance for the application and interpretation of G-6.0108a and b (as to essentials). This Commission does note that later reaffirmations of the Adopting Act do not include the term 'necessary and essential.' The Church is therefore urged to use original sources of this and other historic church documents and not to rely upon re-statements or paraphrases." Craig M. Kibler is the Director of Publications and Executive Editor for the Presbyterian Lay Committee. He can be reached at ckibler@layman.org.

Respond to this article

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