Lawyers say ordination rule can be rendered meaningless By John H. Adams The Layman Online Friday, November 8, 2002 MINNEAPOLIS – Two lawyers who are members of the board of directors of the Covenant Network told people who attended a workshop at the network's national conference that they believe the "fidelity/chastity" ordination standard can be rendered meaningless through legal strategies. Peter Oddliefson and Doug Nave said specific language in the ordination standard – G-6.0106b in the Book of Order – has not been tested by the denomination's highest court. A careful look at that language by the court could result in the dismantling of G-6.0106b without another referendum, they said, allowing churches and sessions to ordain active homosexuals even if it is not taken off the books. Oddliefson and Nave personally have been involved in some of the cases and they have followed the development of church law closely. They outlined what they are advising churches to use as a legal strategy during a workshop Nov. 8. They have collected their views in an 11-page paper titled "Interpreting Book of Order Section G-6.0106b." Both said they do not expect the General Assembly to call for another referendum on the issue until after the assembly receives the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Purity and Unity. That deadline is 2006. In the meantime, they are advising congregations that want to ordain homosexual deacons and elders and call homosexual ministers to assert that they will do all in their power to comply with the constitution while, at the same time, declaring that the constitution contains ambiguous and contradictory passages. Nave said he believed outright defiance – which he claimed only five congregations have declared, although there have been more than 20 – is a "dangerous strategy." The better strategy, he said, is to challenge the language of the ordination standard in light of other parts of the constitution. For instance, Nave said the standard calls for "chastity" in singleness, but that the only reference to chastity in The Book of Confessions is a comment on marriage between a man and a woman. Hence, he sad, the court would have to consider whether chaste meant abstinence from sex or having sex in a pure and holy way. Nave said he believed the 1996 General Assembly, which sent Amendment B to the presbyteries for their vote, knew what it was doing when it used "chastity" instead of "celibacy." He said the word "celibacy" was proposed but rejected. Another challenge he recommends is the terminology calling for "self-acknowledgement" of anything that the confessions call sin. Nave said self-acknowledgement is voluntary. Besides, he added, if the person called upon to self-acknowledge his or her sinful behavior did not believe homosexual sex was sinful, there would be no reason to self-acknowledge it. Likewise, he said, there would be no reason for repentance if the person did not believe the practice of homosexual sex was sinful. Nave said G-6.0106b is actually weaker than the definitive guidance written by the 1978 General Assembly, which did include a reference to celibacy. He said some people wonder whether G-6.0106b, if rendered meaningless by church courts, would be replaced by the 1978 guidance. But Nave said it was his opinion that the 1978 guidance no longer was relevant. Even if that is the case, presbyteries voted in 2001-02 against dismissing the definitive guidance as part of their affirmation of G-6.0106b. "Can we ignore Amendment B?" Nave asked. "I think that's a dangerous strategy. At the end of the day, you will have a pastor lose his ordination and the property of the church reclaimed by the presbytery." Oddliefson said he has been heartened by the outcome so far in cases in which complaints have challenged the ordination of homosexuals. "Fortunately, these cases are being dismissed by the Investigating Committees as they come up in the presbyteries," he said. But the final resolution will be up to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, the highest court in the Presbyterian Church (USA), Oddliefson said. In their recommended strategies for getting people ordained despite G-6.0106b, Oddliefson and Nave did not address the will of Presbyterians, who have voted in three denomination-wide referendums to prohibit the ordination of self-acknowledged, practicing homosexuals. The last vote was by a margin of 3-1 to uphold the constitutional standard.

Respond to this article

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links