The
General Assembly Approves the PUP Report:
Amendments Don't Change Much
By
Gordon Fish and Jim Tony
June 21, 2006
By adopting an Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108, General Assembly (GA) has effectively changed the Constitution of the PCUSA. By virtue of this Authoritative Interpretation (AI), the Constitution today means something different than it did yesterday. That means that today what is constitutional is not the same as what was constitutional yesterday.
Of paramount concern is whether ordaining governing bodies (sessions or presbyteries) are now allowed to ordain or install candidates who are not in compliance with ordination standards, including the behavioral standards of G-6.0106b.
We cannot know for certain at this time how church courts will interpret this new AI, and we choose not to speculate. Instead, we can only consider the meaning of this AI on the basis of its actual wording, taken in light of the rest of the Constitution and other pertinent authoritative interpretations by GA and the GA Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC).
The Discipline Task Force of the Presbyterian Coalition has carefully reviewed the newly adopted AI. In our considered opinion, the wording of this AI can mean that a candidate may be ordained, notwithstanding a departure from the behavior requirements of G-6.0106b and other ordination standards. The amendment of the AI during GA consideration does not undo the damage to our constitutional fabric done by part c(2) of this AI.
The Ecclesiology Committee and the General Assembly (GA) amended provision (d) is as follows:
d. Whether the examination and ordination and installation decision comply with the constitution of the PCUSA and whether the ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing bodies. (changes indicated relative to the original PUP Task Force proposal. See end note for full context.)
- Amended Section d. of Recommendation 5 of the PUP Report
The crux of the problem is the question of what is “the constitution” in adopted provision (d). It is axiomatic that any ambiguities in a constitution must be resolved in a manner that gives effect to all its provisions. The meaning of “the constitution” in (d) now includes the PUP AI as well as G-6.0106b. The AI leaves the relationship between these provisions untested. But nothing in the AI precludes the conclusion that provision (c)(2) of the new authoritative interpretation trumps G-6.0106b. Thus, a governing body’s decision about essentials would be allowed to control. Provision (e) of the AI (calling for the presumption of wisdom in the initial examining body) reinforces that conclusion.
G-6.0106b remains a “standard” of the church, but the AI now requires ordaining governing bodies to determine if an individual departure or violation of the standard must be considered actually a barrier to ordination. Governing bodies will unilaterally invoke the power apparently given in this AI to decide it is not a barrier. The net effect of these considerations will be to undermine G-6.0106b and other ordination requirements with a new and radically deconstructive interpretation of the Constitution.
ENDNOTE:
In its Recommendation #5, the PUP Task Force originally proposed an Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 of the Book of Order that included provisions (c)(1-2) and (d):
c. Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards to those elected to office. These determinations include:
(1) Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office,
(2) Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation.
d. Whether ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing bodies.
The Ecclesiology Committee amended provision (d) as follows:
[Whether
the examination complies with the constitution of the PCUSA and] [W][
w]hether the ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably,
responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a candidate
for church office is subject to review by higher governing bodies.
General Assembly (GA) further amended the first clause and adopted provision (c) and this final version of (d):
[Whether
the examination and ordination and installation decision comply with the constitution
of the PCUSA and] [W][ w]hether the ordaining/installing body has
conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately
in deciding to ordain a candidate for church office is subject to review by
higher governing bodies. (changes indicated relative to the original PUP
Task Force proposal)