Congregation must uphold constitution By John H. Adams The Presbyterian Layman Volume 32, Number 5 Posted November 11, 1999 BEDFORD, N.H. – The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Northeast has declared “null and void and of no effect” a presbytery’s decision that permitted the 76-member Christ Church of Burlington, Vt., to dissent from the denomination’s ordination standards. Furthermore, the commission’s 11-0 decision in October said the session of Christ Church remains under a previous presbytery order to provide evidence of compliance with the standard at issue, which is G-6.0106b in the Book of Order. The commission’s order said the presbytery “shall continue to work pastorally with the session of Christ Church with the ultimate goal of bringing them into compliance with the law as it now exists.” Statement of dissent Christ Church had adopted a statement of dissent from G-6.0106b. It “condemned” the ordination standard as “hypocrisy regarding inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Christians in the full life of the church” and “bad polity which will serve only to further distrust, intolerance and chaos in the church.” The Presbytery of Northern New England first ordered Christ Church to comply with the Book of Order, but later reconsidered. It appointed a committee to draft possible responses. The proposed responses ranged from continued admonition that Christ Church obey the constitution to presbytery concurrence with Christ Church’s opposition. In its final vote on the matter, the presbytery endorsed Christ Church’s dissent from G-6.0106b. The presbytery’s decision was challenged almost immediately. In its decision, the synod commission said there are acceptable ways for a governing body to express its disagreement with a denominational policy, but that they do not include outright violation of the constitution. The commission quoted from a 1983 report to the 195th General Assembly that said schism can result “when a governing body violates the constitution in which our visible unity is defined.” That was also the thrust of the argument made by the complainants, who were represented by Julius J. Poppinga during a hearing on October 7 in New Bedford, N.H. Poppinga also used the 1983 report, titled “Historic Principles, Conscience and Church Government,” quoting a statement that said, “No single congregation can stand by itself.” Connectionalism ‘jeopardized’ In his presentation, Poppinga said the action by Christ Church and the concurrence of the presbytery “challenges our oneness” and “puts in jeopardy our connectionalism that defines the Presbyterian Church (USA) … We’re not here to chastise the presbytery, to rebuke anyone. Our action is not punitive. It’s remedial, corrective. We have no choice. What we are dealing with today goes to the very core of our denomination.” The commission’s ruling quoted from the Christ Church resolution that said “we vow to continue welcoming persons living singly or in committed relationships, regardless of sexual orientation, into the life, membership and leadership of this congregation on an equal basis, including eligibility for election and ordination as a ruling elder.” In response to that assertion, the commission said, “Although it is true that the official policy of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is to prohibit ordination and installation on the basis of practice and not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, the session’s action nevertheless expresses an intention not to comply with an explicit constitutional provision.” The commission said the presbytery failed in its responsibility to see “‘that the orders of higher governing bodies are observed and carried out.’ At a minimum the presbytery had a responsibility to determine that the session’s resolution was an irregularity and to record its disapproval of the session’s resolution.” The commission said the presbytery had no authority to override its first resolution requiring that Christ Church abide by the constitution. “The presbytery … shall either require compliance with … [that] resolution or such other action as the presbytery shall take so that the sessions shall be moving toward compliance with Maxwell v. Pittsburgh Presbytery…” In Maxwell v. Pittsburgh Presbytery a candidate for ministry was denied ordination after he stated that he was opposed to the ordination of women and could not in good conscience support such ordinations.

Respond to this article

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