Ordination Standards committee convenes By Robert P. Mills The Layman Online Monday, June 11, 2001 Following an opening hour spent behind doors that were not merely closed but locked, the assembly committee on Ordination Standards began the public portion of its work Sunday evening. The committee will be considering overtures that seek to amend or delete G-6.0106b, the "fidelity and chastity" clause of the PCUSA's ordination standards. Assembly rules permit, but do not require, committees to close up to one hour of their initial meetings for "community building." When the doors were unlocked, roughly 100 observers found the 60-member committee tucked into the front corner of the cavernous meeting room. An early, and unanswered, question was raised by the Rev. Leslie Traylor, minister commissioner from Missouri Union Presbytery, who wondered why the overture requesting the creation of a theological commission had not been referred to the Ordination Standards committee. She expressed concern that "days of work [by the Ordination Standards committee] would be wiped out by action on that overture." After discussing a few procedural details, the committee heard presentations from two denominational officials. Historical background First to speak was Mark Tammen, director of constitutional services for the PCUSA. Tammen's task was to give commissioners "background on how we got to where you are today." He began by noting that battles over ordination standards have been part of Presbyterian history "since we've been on these shores," going back to the subscription controversies in the 1700s. Tammen noted that the first time the issue of homosexuality came before the General Assembly was in 1970, when a task force described the practice of homosexuality as sin. In 1978, the northern stream of the Presbyterian Church issued the statement that is the standard for ordination and sexuality today: persons who are unrepentant of homosexual practice are not eligible for ordination. The southern stream of the Presbyterian Church adopted virtually identical language in 1979. Tammen went on to observe that the term "Definitive Guidance" first was used in a 1985 judicial case to describe the 1978-79 standard. A string of judicial cases that followed essentially affirmed that standard. "In 1996, we made a change not in the standard but in the vehicle," Tammen said. The Albuquerque assembly added section b to G-6.106 and sent it down to the presbyteries, where it was approved. "That did not change the standard, but it did add it to our constitution. That's still the standard of this church." In 1997, Amendment A, an attempt to change G-6.0106b, passed the assembly but not the presbyteries. Constitutional options Next, the committee heard from Marianne Wolf, who chairs the denomination's Advisory Committee on the Constitution. Wolf told the commissioners that the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) is responsible for examining all overtures that would change the Book of Order or interpretations of it. "We are to report directly to the GA and advise the GA," she said. "We will have the responsibility here to advise you on anything that would change the constitution, as to whether it is constitutional or not. It is up to you to make the final decision." Wolf then cited the denomination's "three sources of constitutional law:" 1) The constitution itself, which is changed through the amendment process. 2) Judicial decisions, case law that is very narrowly drawn. 3) When the General Assembly deliberately interprets the constitution on the advice of the ACC. Wolf told committee members that, "Given the law of the church I have just outlined, the ACC has observed several times and observes again that the deletion of G-6.0106b will be insufficient to effect the change sought by some in the church. You can take that away, but there is a prior authoritative interpretation, namely 1978, that says you cannot ordain. … If you waste time on that you'll spin your wheels. You need to move past that." Wolf then grouped the overtures assigned to the committee under five headings, beginning with overtures asking for exceptions. "This is a tried or true thing in the Presbyterian Church in some matters," Wolf said, "but it has never been done for an issue like this that would put a church or presbytery into direct conflict with constitutional vows, which require obedience to the constitution of the church. The details of the conflict that would come is outlined in our opinions." A second group of overtures attempt to amend the inclusion lists. "Do we add sexual orientation or don't we?" Wolf asked, summarizing these overtures. "Some places, it may be in conflict with the constitution. Generally speaking, the ACC does not find this helpful because, as soon as you have a list, you are excluding. The word all is inclusive." Other groups of overtures include granting governing bodies discretion in whom to ordain, amending or deleting different sections of the constitution, and having the General Assembly issue a new Authoritative Interpretation. Of the last option, Wolf said, "An Authoritative Interpretation is based on words in the constitution. Until those words are changed, you cannot have a new Authoritative Interpretation. Generally speaking, you cannot have an Authoritative Interpretation until the base document changes." The committee will resume its work Monday morning with two hours of open hearings before moving into a quasi-committee of the whole Monday afternoon and evening.

Respond to this article

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