Part 3
UNTENABLE CONFLICT

III. The G-6.0106 – G-6.0108 Connection

The 2006 ACC Advice is misleading in its treatment of the relationship between G-6.0106b and G-6.0108.

First, it asserts that no GA or GAPJC has ever addressed a critical connection between G-6.0106b and G-6.0108:

“Neither the General Assembly PJC nor previous assemblies have addressed the particular question of whether or not G-6.0106b’s broad prohibition on ordination or installation of a person engaged in a self-acknowledged conduct the confessions call sin is limited by G-6.0108’s authorization of ordaining or installing bodies to determine whether a candidate’s departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity.” (2006 ACC Advice)

The GAPJC decision in Londonderry PC v. Northern New England Presbytery (2001) demonstrates this claim is false.

ACC Advice on PUP:
Omissions,
Misrepresentations,
and Contradictions
PC(USA) Deserves Better

Gordon Fish & Jim Tony

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 this series of short articles, we will provide commentary to document the ACC report’s serious – if not fatal – flaws. Other installments of this series are available at www.presbycoalition.org under the heading of PUP Resources.

Second, the 2006 ACC fails to recognize that under Londonderry, freedom of conscience under G-6.0108 does not relieve an ordaining governing body of its duty to comply with the provisions of G-6.0106b.

This point has been emphasized in a helpful article by Daniel M. Saperstein, who, as a GAPJC commissioner, participated in the adjudication of Londonderry.

Third, the 2006 ACC directly contradicts advice of previous ACCs.

By permitting the ordination of self-affirmed, practicing, unrepentant homosexual persons, the 2006 ACC tacitly creates what the 2001 ACC termed “an untenable conflict.”

1. The Londonderry PC v. Northern New England Presbytery Decision (2001)

The Londonderry case stemmed from a resolution adopted by the session of Christ Church, Burlington, VT, declaring that G-6.0106b was inconsistent with other provisions of the constitution and that it would consider members for election and ordination to office, including persons living in committed homosexual relationships. Presbytery initially acted, but subsequently rescinded that action without pursuing any other remedy.

The GAPJC held that the session’s act of adopting its resolution of non-compliance violated the constitution. It required the presbytery to redress the error and bring the session into compliance. Londonderry thus relies on the same right of the whole church to define and enforce ordination requirements that was earlier affirmed by Maxwell, as discussed in Section II of this analysis.

2. Londonderry explicates the relationship between freedom of conscience under G-6.0108 and an ordaining governing body’s duty under G-6.0106b.

Northern New England Presbytery defended its failure to deal with the Christ Church session’s resolution by claiming that “G-1.0301a and G-6.0108 affirm freedom of conscience with respect to matters addressed by G-6.0106b.”

The Presbytery grounded its defense from the beginning in the claim that the definition of sin in G-6.0106b is not an essential, so it can be superseded by freedom of conscience. In its trial brief for the Synod PJC, the Presbytery claimed:

“It is our position that “sin”, as defined and described in G-6.0106b, is not an essential of reformed faith or indispensable in doctrine or Presbyterian government…We believe that freedom of conscience with respect to the interpretation and application of G-6.0106b must be acknowledged and honored under the provisions of G-6.0108a.”

Although rebuffed by the Synod PJC, the Presbytery reiterated this position in its GAPJC appeal brief, again arguing the centrality of G-6.0108 and its alleged conflict with G-6.0106b:

“[Our] Brief…discusses in detail G-6.0108 of the BoO which contains the same language set forth in Conclusions (4) and (5) above. These conclusions and G-6.0108 support a central argument in [our] brief which is that the definition of sin in G-6.0106b is not necessarily an essential of Reformed Faith and, therefore, freedom of conscience must be properly acknowledged and honored in the interpretation and application of ordination standards.”

The GAPJC also repudiated the Presbytery’s argument, recognizing the adoption of G-6.0106b as a valid exercise of the right of the whole church to make and enforce “qualifications established by the corporate judgment of the whole church for ordination to service as minister of the Word and Sacrament, elder, and deacon” under the Historic Principles of Church Order (G-1.0302).

How can the 2006 ACC claim that no GAPJC has ever addressed the connection of G-6.0106b and G-6.0108 in this light?

3. Londonderry nullifies any claim that an ordaining governing body can be relieved of its duty to comply with the entire constitution, including both G-6.0108 and G-6.0106b.

The GAPJC rejected any attempt to read or apply the Constitution selectively, to the exclusion of G-6.0106b’s requirements:

“While the authoritative interpretation adopted in 1998 requires governing bodies to examine each officer-elect on the basis of his or her individual character and behavior, it does not permit a governing body to disregard ordination standards mandated by the Constitution in the examination of those individuals.

The Londonderry decision also refutes the claim that G-6.0106b can be disregarded because of any alleged incompatibility with the rest of the Constitution.

“Nevertheless, it is the task of governing bodies and judicial commissions to resolve them in such a way as to give effect to all provisions. It is not within the power of any governing body or judicial commission to declare a properly adopted provision of the Constitution to be invalid…G-6.0106b presents the qualifications established by the corporate judgment of the whole church for ordination to service as minister of the Word and Sacrament, elder, and deacon.”

4. The addition of G-6.0106b to the Constitution did not alter the comparable limitation on a governing body’s freedom of conscience arising from the 1978 Definitive Guidance

The ACC’s claim that the relationship between G-6.0106b and G-6.0108 has never been tested also flies in the face of repeated GAPJC decisions rendered before G-6.0106b was added to the Book of Order in 1997. Any supposed tension did not suddenly arise with the passage of G-6.0106b, but was equally posed by the 1978 Definitive Guidance (later the 1993 Authoritative Interpretation). The same fundamental issue arises under either.

Before the adoption of G-6.0106b, proponents of homosexual ordination argued in every pertinent GAPJC case that “freedom of conscience” (grounded implicitly or explicitly in G-1.0301a and G-6.0108) trumped the ’78 Definitive Guidance/AI. Their arguments were consistently rejected. The GAPJC repeatedly ruled that an ordaining governing body had no freedom under the 1978 Definitive Guidance/Authoritative Interpretation to ordain an unrepentant, self-acknowledged, practicing homosexual person. Nothing in the Constitution can be used to argue governing bodies suddenly gained that freedom upon passage of G-6.0106b. G-6.0108 impacts G-6.0106b in the same way it impacts Definitive Guidance.

Precedent-setting GAPJC decisions beginning with Blasdell et al. v. Presbytery of Western New York (1985) establish that freedom of conscience under G-1.0301a and
G-6.0108 does not provide an escape route that allows an ordaining governing body to supersede any ordination requirement that is constitutionally mandated, whether by express language in the Constitution itself or by authoritative interpretation that establishes an essential of Reformed faith or polity.

In Blasdell, the GAPJC ruled that the 1978 Definitive Guidance was, in fact and substance, an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution and thus binding. It termed the GA’s action [“...our present understanding of God's will precludes the ordination of persons who do not repent of homosexual practice”] to be “clear and unequivocal.” It therefore ruled that:

“When the General Assembly interprets the Constitution to mean that self-affirming, practicing homosexuals do not meet the qualifications for ordination and installation, the local church must abide by that determination.”

Subsequent GAPJC rulings only confirm that principle.

5. The 2006 ACC advice contradicts earlier ACC advice on the relationship of G-6.0106 to G-6.0108

In 2001, the Presbytery of Santa Fe overtured GA seeking an amendment of
G-6.0108 that would permit a governing body to be granted a waiver freeing it from the requirements of G-6.0106b. The request was predicated on freedom of conscience.

Recognizing the categorically binding effect of G-6.0106b, the 2001 ACC characterized the request as seeking “a waiver for defying a clear prohibition.” (emphasis added). The ACC further responded with this comment specifically relating G-6.0106 and G-6.0108:

“Waivers from the requirements of G-6.0106b, and possibly from G-6.0106a, would create an untenable conflict with G-6.0108b. The church would immediately be in the position of ordaining individuals who are defined as unrepentant sinners in G-6.0106b. It would be incomprehensible, indeed, for the church to be in the position of solving the present impasse by ordaining unrepentant sinners, as defined in the Constitution. A further serious inconsistency with the insertion of a waiver clause regarding ordination standards is the fact that, upon ordination, the conscience of the ordained officer would be bound by the very standards that would be waived (G-6.0108b) to permit the ordination in the first place. ….

“The historic right of conscience as described in G-1.0300, is a right of individual conscience. Section G-6.0106b, from which waivers would be allowed, does not bind the conscience of any individual. Governing bodies are responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Constitution. Although they may allow variance from the standards of the church for individuals under their jurisdiction, the Constitution does not contemplate that governing bodies be freed from those standards. The overture further presumes that the ‘freedom of conscience’ can be applied to governing bodies, a presumption not supported by the Form of Government.” (emphasis added)

Approving Recommendation 5 would give tacit approval to what the 2001 ACC called “an untenable conflict” and “ordination of unrepentant sinners.”

____________________________________________________________________________

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.

Part 3 UNTENABLE CONFLICT

Part 3
UNTENABLE CONFLICT