 Clerk sends out mixed signals on constitution By John H. Adams The Layman Volume 35, Number 1 Posted February 8, 2002
On the one hand, Kirkpatrick, in a Jan. 3 letter to other clerks, called on them “to join me in faithfully upholding our Constitution in the year ahead.” On the other hand, his office, through a “polity reflection,” suggests that governing bodies are free to develop their own definitions of key terms – including “chaste” – when considering whether candidates for elder or minister meet the constitutional “fidelity/chastity” ordination requirement. No public criticism Meanwhile, Kirkpatrick has not publicly criticized sessions and presbyteries that have declared, as did the session of All Souls Parish in New York, that “our church does not conduct the selection of church officers or board members in accordance with the language of this amendment [the ‘fidelity/chastity’ clause], nor do we intend to do so in the future.” Likewise, the session of the Presbyterian Church in Mount Kisco, N.Y., said, “… we have not and cannot in good conscience comply with the recent [1997] amendment to our denomination’s constitution.” Those and nine other declarations of defiance are highlighted on a Web page sponsored by More Light Presbyterians. In addition, the Witherspoon Society says the sessions of 66 congregations have signed its statement of dissent – declaring that the ordination standard “is not indispensable in doctrine or Presbyterian government nor is it an essential tenet of our faith.” Kirkpatrick has been challenged to enforce the ordination standard, G-6.0106b in the Book of Order. He was scheduled to meet with a group of evangelicals to discuss the issue, but he would not accede to their request that the meeting be open to the press, so it was called off. Kirkpatrick insists that his role in enforcing the constitution should be conducted privately. In his letter to clerks, which he did make public, Kirkpatrick issued a generic appeal to enforce the constitution – but without any recommendation of specific action. Action is required Presbyterian polity does require that action be taken to defend constitutional standards, and Kirkpatrick’s job – included in the oath he took – is to “preserve and defend” the constitution. In Londonderry v. the Presbytery of Northern New England in 2000, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, the highest court in the denomination, ruled that the presbytery failed to enforce the constitution because it took no action against the session of Christ Presbyterian Church in Burlington, Vt. The session had approved a “resolution of dissent” – saying it would not abide by G-6.0106b. That court’s decision said, “This commission finds that there are no constitutional grounds for a governing body to fail to comply with an express provision of the Constitution … Assertions of inconsistency, confusion, or ambiguity may justify the right to protest. They do not create a right to disregard any part of the Constitution. “When an individual or governing body threatens to move from verbal dissent to active disobedience, it is the obligation of the covenant community to seek to prevent the dissenting party from falling into contumacy. This begins with an act of pastoral care, but may become an act of church discipline.” That same decision says a declaration “not to comply with the express corporate judgment of the Church in an explicit constitutional provision exceeds the constitutional bounds of freedom of conscience and therefore requires a response on the part of the governing body exercising oversight.” As was his duty, Kirkpatrick reported to the 2001 General Assembly the outcome of Londonderry, including the court’s decision that the session of Christ Church be required to comply with the constitution and be warned “of the spiritual effects and disciplinary consequences of non-compliance.” But he did not report any efforts he may have made to ensure that the court’s order was obeyed. The Manual of the General Assembly, 2000-01 [p. 48] requires the clerk to “obtain from the governing body a statement of its compliance and make a full report to the next General Assembly.” Call for enforcement Kirkpatrick’s letter to the clerks was more pointed in criticizing ministers and elders who he asserted are “advocating the withholding of duly authorized per capita assessments from their governing bodies as a form of protest. It is a violation of our ordination vows to promote schism or the defiance of constitutional sanctioned governing body directives.” Withholding per-capita payment is not a violation of the Constitution. The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly has ruled that each session is responsible for determining how to spend the tithes and offerings of the local church. |
|||
| Respond
to this article |
|||
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|||
