Part 4
TOO LATE TO RESURRECT A DEAD CLAIM

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.

“The second sentence of paragraph 5b reiterates a principle frequently identified by the Advisory Committee on the Constitution that interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution can occur through either a decision of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission on the facts of a particular case before it or by a General Assembly through the process for adoption of an authoritative interpretation found in G-13.0103r. Taken with the first sentence, this paragraph reaffirms that neither a permanent judicial commission nor a General Assembly adopting an authoritative interpretation can change the standards for ordination or installation. All either can do is interpret the standards that are part of the Constitution. While this principle borders on the axiomatic, its restatement may lend weight to arguments that the authoritative interpretation of the Constitution in place prior to the adoption of G-6.0106b should be eliminated because that authoritative interpretation added to rather than interpreted the then existing constitutional standards. Whether such a position is adopted depends on whether the argument prevails that the definitive guidance that became authoritative interpretation in 1993 actually legislated new constitutional standards rather than interpreted existing ones. That determination is not called for by this proposed authoritative interpretation, and thus would have to be determined separately by this or a future assembly, or by the General Assembly PJC in a judicial case. (Emphases added to call attention to problematic claims.)

“Our present understanding of God's will precludes the ordination of persons who do not repent of homosexual practice.”

“…unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination set forth in Form of Government, Chapter VII, Section 3 (37.03): . . . ‘It is indispensable ¹ that, besides possessing the necessary gifts and abilities, natural and acquired, everyone undertaking a particular ministry should have a sense of inner persuasion, be sound in the faith, live according to godliness, have the approval of God's people and the concurring judgment of a lawful judicatory of the Church.’” (emphases added)

Definitive Guidance, 1978 & 1979, adopted as authoritative interpretation in 1993 (See endnote)

“… it is our considered opinion, and we so find, that the ‘Definitive Guidance’ of the 190th General Assembly (1978) of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and the ’Definitive Guidance’ of the 119th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (1979) on the issue of ordination of self-affirming, practicing homosexuals were, in fact and in substance, authoritative interpretations of the Constitutions as they were then and as the Constitution presently exists. Therefore, it is unconstitutional for the Church to ordain any self-affirming, practicing, and unrepentant homosexual as elder, deacon, or minister of the Word.”

“This specific issue of constitutional law in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has been determined after careful consideration in [Blasdell], which held that a self-affirming, practicing and unrepentant homosexual may not be ordained as a deacon. [Blasdell] was based on an interpretation issued by the 190th General Assembly (1978) in the UPCUSA that found ‘that unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination set forth in the Form of Government.’ …To date, the General Assembly has not acted to overturn the basis of this commission's determinative decision in that case. This decision, grounded in the authority of the General Assembly to issue authoritative interpretations of the Constitution, speaks clearly and without ambiguity on the issue presented by this case. Any change in policy where no ambiguity of interpretation exists must await change by subsequent action of the General Assembly. (emphases added)

“A large number of overtures over the years have proposed amendment to delete G-6.0106b from the Book of Order. The General Assembly has consistently refused to approve them for the reason that even though authoritative interpretations of the Constitution deriving from G-6.0106b would become moot, because the material they interpret has disappeared from the Book of Order, authoritative interpretations made prior to the amendment that introduced G-6.0106b continue to stand as authoritative interpretations of the ordination standards. Section G-6.0106b entered the Book of Order in 1997 when it was adopted as an amendment by a majority of the presbyteries. The latest authoritative interpretations concerning the ordination of self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons have affirmed the decision of the ‘Blasdell Case’ made in 1985, and the decision remains the constitutional law of the church. [This advice goes on to quote Blasdell as above.] (emphasis added)

“The Advisory Committee on the Constitution draws a sharp distinction between what has been known as ‘definitive guidance’ and the binding nature of an ‘authoritative interpretation’ by a General Assembly under G-13.0103r. The term ‘definitive guidance’ has never been used in our Constitution. However, under G-13.0103r the General Assembly may issue an ‘authoritative interpretation’ that is binding on all governing bodies and does carry the full authority of the Constitution.

“It is the opinion of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution that the General Assembly statements of 1978, 1979, and subsequent years concerning the ordination of self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons and related recommendations adopted by the General Assemblies have been considered by the judicial commissions of the church. They currently carry the weight of ‘authoritative interpretations.’

“Decisions of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, which considered these earlier statements, are binding. The question of whether or not--in 1978, 1979, and subsequent years--it was constitutionally sound to declare the statements binding has become moot. Because of subsequent decisions of our churches highest judicial commissions, the current prohibition to ordination has been determined.” (emphasis added)

In the instance of the General Assembly rendering an interpretation of the Constitution, and particularly the interpretation of G-6.0106 (and in 1978, Section 37.03), the interpretation has the weight of constitutional law of the church until a new interpretation is offered by the General Assembly through one of its various means (e.g. amendment, new interpretation). The provision is unambiguously stated in "Chapter XIII. The General Assembly."

In G-13.0103r, the General Assembly has responsibility and power to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the Church when rendered in accord with G-13.0112 or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case. The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding. (Book of Order, G-13.0103r)

The advisory committee has advised that the Constitution is unambiguously clear in giving the General Assembly the power to make a constitutional interpretation. That is to say, the General Assembly has exercised its lawful constitutional power and that the interpretation is binding on the governing bodies of the church. The interpretation will stand until such time as a General Assembly shall modify or change it. (emphasis added)

Very early in the history of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, even before the General Assembly was established, the plan of reunion of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia contained the following sentences: “That when any matter is determined by a major vote, every member shall either actively concur with or passively submit to such determination; or if his conscience permit him to do neither, he shall, after sufficient liberty modestly to reason and remonstrate, peaceably withdraw from our communion without attempting to make any schism. Provided always that this shall be understood to extend only to such determination as the body shall judge indispensable in doctrine or Presbyterian government.” Hist Dig (P) p. 1310.) )Plan of Union of 1758, par II)