Part 5
RISKY BUSINESS IN THE PUP
AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION

The ACC advice discusses Wier II as follows:

The final sentence of this quotation is not in dispute. Clearly Presbyterian polity lodges with the OGB the primary responsibility for determining whether a candidate for ordination and installation is compliant with the requirements of the Constitution. The 2006 ACC advice misrepresents the Wier II decision by omitting the following sentence:

By its omission, the ACC imposes limits on OGB inquiry rights and duties that the GA PJC did not impose.

Therefore, the GAPJC has not limited reasonable cause to self-acknowledgement alone. Wier II plainly recognizes that an OGB may have knowledge of the life and character of a candidate that is separate from what a candidate has already expressly self-acknowledged. If such knowledge rises to the level of “reasonable cause,” then further inquiry is not optional – it is mandated. In the subsequent case of Presbytery of San Joaquin et al. v. Presbytery of the Redwoods (GAPJC Remedial Case 215-8, 2003), the GAPJC does indicate that “stereotypical profiling is not a reasonable or valid ground for singling out a candidate for additional questioning” and that “A hunch, gossip or stereotype is not a sufficient ground to compel a governing body to make further inquiry.” However, the San Joaquin decision affirms the underlying principle from Wier II that either “reasonable cause” or actual “self-acknowledgment” compels further inquiry. If the OGB relies on self-acknowledgement, it has to meet the “plain, palpable and obvious standard.” The OGB is certainly in the best place to know whether there is any reasonable cause for further inquiry, whether that be by self-acknowledgement or otherwise.

Wier II is a refinement of the 1993 GAPJC decision in LeTourneau v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area. Invoking the 1978 Definitive Guidance, the GAPJC established a basic duty for examinations conducted by ordaining governing bodies:

Furthermore, Wier II does not prohibit any inquiry that is made of all candidates before an examining body.

The 2006 ACC advice thus exaggerates Wier II’s limitations on inquiry, by failing to recognize that inquiry may be based on an OGB’s independent knowledge or on questions of all similarly situated candidates. Thus, the ACC again provides an erroneous analysis of a GAPJC case, failing to give it a plain reading.

The 2006 ACC advice also fails to recognize that if implemented, Recommendation #5 would create a situation in which self-acknowledgement could provide evidence on which a disciplinary action could be predicated. The examination process mandated by Recommendation #5 includes two separate required determinations, as listed in 5(c)(1) and 5(c)(2). First, the OGB must ascertain whether a particular candidate complies with constitutional provisions, including the conduct requirements of G-6.0106b. That determination must include determining whether a candidate is willing to repent of proscribed conduct. Only after it has established non-compliance by that candidate with a practice the Confessions call sin, can an OGB then decide whether that particular sin is one for which repentance is a mandatory prerequisite for ordination.^b

Because “standards” are established by the General Assembly, the OGB would be precluded from any blanket determination that a given practice is not sinful. The determination has to be done on a case-by-case basis. The OGB would then be in the place of saying which sins do not require repentance. In effect, the OGB would be creating a hierarchy of sins – those serious enough to demand repentance and those that can be overlooked. In San Joaquin, the GAPJC rightly warned against just that theological error.

Thus, the very process that Recommendation #5 requires would create an incontrovertible record that could become the factual, “plain, palpable, and obvious evidence”? on which a disciplinary complaint could be lodged against the individual after he or she is ordained or installed. Nothing in the PUP Recommendations could or would limit this prospect of a disciplinary action. In other words, the OGB would find itself in an untenable quandary–a person qualified in the required manner would immediately be a potential subject of church discipline for the very exception to the standards granted by the OGB. ^c

The 2006 ACC advice fails again in its consideration of the conflicts the PUP Task Force’s proposed Authoritative Interpretation poses for the rest of our constitutional order. They apparently don’t even notice. And what they do notice they get wrong or at best only partially right.

___________________________________________________________________

^aThis case is frequently captioned as “Wier II” to distinguish it from an earlier 1998 case involving the same parties and similar subject matter.

^bRecommendation #5(c)(2) is very specific – it mandates a determination regarding a departure “barring the candidate” (emphasis added), not just candidates in general.

^cSee also Bridgeman, David and James Quillen (former members of the GAPJC), “Adoption of PUP proposal would cause a ‘tectonic shift’”, posted May 8, The Layman Online, volume 39, Number 2.