The Layman – October 2005 Volume 38, Number 4 – Posted October 26, 2005

Defying the constitution and the court Any fair reading of the recommendation of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity would have to reach this conclusion: It proposes that presbyteries decide whether the constitutional “fidelity/chastity” clause in the Book of Order is essential. The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC), the highest court in the denomination, has stated otherwise. In its 2001 ruling in Londonderry v. Christ Church, the GAPJC made three key statements: 1. “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.” 2. “This Commission finds that there are no constitutional grounds for a governing body to fail to comply with an express provision of the Constitution, however inartfully stated.” (italics added) 3. “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. Furthermore, no court in our denomination has the authority to amend the Constitution or to invalidate any part of it. This is exclusively a legislative process.” In fact, however, Presbyterian governing bodies have openly defied the constitution and the GAPJC’s ruling numerous times. The most recent act of defiance was in the Presbytery of Hudson River. The presbytery voted 88-9 on Sept. 27 to approve for ordination Ray Bagnuolo, who described himself as a “self-affirming, practicing, non-repentant homosexual.” The irony is that defiant presbyteries have shunned the collective wisdom of the whole church, expressed in three national referendums when the majority of the nation’s presbyteries approved the constitutional amendment in 1997 (55 percent) and affirmed it in 1998 (66 percent) and 2001 (73 percent). The constitutional amendment that they sanctioned is clear: “Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.” G-6.0106b, Book of Order. Today, many of the same presbyteries that openly violate G-6.0106b and the GAPJC’s ruling in Londonderry – acting as if they both erred and are irrelevant – are once again seeking to repeal G-6.0106b and the General Assembly’s Authoritative Interpretation that undergirds it. But if the constitution and Londonderry are both wrong and pose no hindrance to their ordination of ministers who are practicing homosexuals, why bother to fight another angry legislative battle to remove the obstacles? Likewise, the task force has apparently concluded that both the constitution and Londonderry are no impediment to candidates for church office who violate Biblical standards of sexuality.

Respond to this article Index of Layman editorials Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links