 
Assembly issues additional authoritative interpretation By Robert P. Mills The Presbyterian Layman |
|||
The Assembly’s action reads: “Resolved, that the 210th General Assembly (1998) approve the following authoritative interpretation of G-6.0106b and G-4.0403. ‘Standing in the tradition of breaking down the barriers erected to exclude people based on their condition such as age, race, class, gender and sexual orientation, the Presbyterian Church (USA) commits itself not to exclude categorically in considering those called to ordained service in the church but to consider the lives and behaviors of candidates as individuals.’” Authoritative assurances Church Orders and Ministry Committee Moderator Carol McDonald, whose committee brought the proposal to the Assembly floor, declared, “This will diminish neither the definitive guidance of 1978 or the authoritative interpretation of 1993.” Youth Advisory Delegate Kara Tony asked, “If I don’t want anything added to our current authoritative interpretation how do I accomplish this?” GA Moderator Douglas Oldenburg answered, “Vote no.” Commissioner Kathy Goodrich then asked, “Is this in addition to or in place of our previous authoritative interpretation?” Oldenburg answered, “My understanding is that it is in addition to, not in place of.” McDonald closed debate by assuring commissioners, “The stated clerk said this neither supersedes or sets aside previous definitive guidance and authoritative interpretation.” The vote to adopt the new authoritative interpretation was 355-179. From overture to interpretation The Assembly’s action came in response to an overture from Chicago Presbytery. Chicago asked the 1997 General Assembly to declare, “it is a violation of the inclusiveness requirements and standards specified in the Book of Order …to exclude from membership or leadership – including ordained office and employment – any person on the basis of that person’s membership in a class or category of persons,” and “that the [1978] definitive guidance … is an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution in that it considered only the requirement of governing bodies to examine and not the requirement to be inclusive.” However, the Advisory Committee on the Constitution determined that Chicago’s overture “attempts to overturn the decisions of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, which have determined that self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons may not be ordained as elders and deacons … The overture, furthermore, misinterprets the constitutional call to inclusiveness as absolute, when it is in fact circumscribed and limited by other provisions of the Constitution along with Scripture and our confessional standards.” Thus the ACC advised the Charlotte Assembly “not to approve the proposed authoritative interpretation.” Chicago’s overture was assigned to the Assembly Committee on Church Orders and Ministry, where a motion was made to disapprove the overture and append the ACC’s comment. That motion was defeated 20-21-4. Alister Drummond from New York City Presbytery then moved to substitute language provided by the Advisory Committee on Women’s Concerns (ACWC) for Chicago’s overture. With minor modifications, that language was approved 39-8 and sent to the floor of the Assembly where it was adopted. |
|||
|
The Presbyterian Layman, July/August 1998 contents |
|||
|
Home,
· Archives,
·
Breaking News, |
|||