ACC Advice on PUP: Omissions, Misrepresentations, and Contradictions
PC(USA) Deserves Better
by Jim Tony and Gordon Fish

Introduction

Whatever the outcome, General Assembly’s response to the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity (PUP) is certain to be a watershed event. Adopting the PUP Recommendations would cause a tectonic upheaval in PC(USA) polity. It is essential that GA commissioners understand the implications of what the Task Force itself calls an “experiment” whose effect is unpredictable.

The Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) is charged with examining all constitutional proposals “for clarity and consistency of language and for compatibility with other provisions of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” (G-18.0301b and their own self-understanding as shown in their own “Agency Summary,” 2001)

The ACC’s analysis of the PUP report should have brought clarity. Instead, it has multiplied the confusion. Without acknowledging its own shift, the ACC has offered advice that directly contradicts the findings of previous ACCs. Their report fails even to consider precedent-setting decisions of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) and is further flawed by numerous statements that are incomplete or misleading. In some cases, the ACC advice misrepresents existing Presbyterian constitutional law. The ACC fails to recognize that the proposed Authoritative Interpretation is in fact a constitutional amendment that GA cannot approve without presbytery concurrence.

The Presbyterian Coalition’s Discipline Task Force has carefully reviewed the ACC advice on the PUP report, especially on controversial Recommendation #5, in light of the Constitution and pertinent and binding GA and GAPJC decisions. In a series of short articles, we will provide commentary to document the ACC report’s serious – if not fatal – flaws.

I. G-6.0106b (“Fidelity/Chastity”)

G-6.0106b was added to the Book of Order in 1997 to codify ordination standards that had been consistently held and applied for centuries by Presbyterians and virtually every other Christian denomination. Every GA since has considered proposals to modify or eliminate G-6.0106b. Previous ACCs have responded with a consistent and unambiguous understanding of the place of this provision and the related Authoritative Interpretations. They repeatedly advised that both: (i) the “fidelity/chastity” requirement of G-6.0106b and (ii) the Definitive Guidance of 1978, which was affirmed as an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) by official action of the 1993 GA, categorically prohibited ordination of self-affirming, practicing, unrepentant homosexual persons. The Office of the Stated Clerk of GA confirmed this understanding in Advisory Opinion #8.

Every ACC before 2006 stated that removing this categorical prohibition required both a constitutional amendment to change G-6.0106b and GA action to rescind the 1978/1993 AI. This year’s ACC effectively repudiates this body of work, claiming in effect that a single GA action could reverse by itself what all sides heretofore recognized. A careful review of past ACC actions and relevant GAPJC decisions is required to decide if the present ACC’s advice is reliable and constitutionally sound. We believe the 2006 GA should not rely on this year’s ACC advice in light of its extreme variance from the advice of previous years, the decisions of GA PJCs and the history of our Constitution itself.

Read Part II

____________________________________________________________________________

Rev. James R. Tony is Senior Pastor of Palos Park (IL) Presbyterian Community Church and a former member of the Permanent Judicial Commission of Chicago Presbytery.

Elder Gordon E. Fish, Ph.D., is a member of Grace Presbyterian Church, Montclair, NJ. Dr. Fish is a physicist and Registered US Patent Agent currently working for an intellectual property law firm. He was co-counsel with the late Julius B. Poppinga in the Londonderry and Benton GAPJC cases.