In
Installment 6 of this series, we explained why it is constitutionally
impermissible for an authoritative interpretation to strip the GA
of its foundational and essential powers to establish church-wide
ordination qualifications and to require compliance from all ordaining
governing bodies. Installment 7 looks to the very words of the 2001
ACC to show that the 2006 ACC ought to know better.
VII.
"It Can't Be Done!" Former ACC Would Say to PUP Authoritative
Interpretation
In
2001 the ACC declared that to do what the PUP Task Force proposes
would require a constitutional amendment. In 2006 the ACC says exactly
the opposite. Why the complete reversal? If giving ordaining governing
bodies freedom to reach differing conclusions about who is ordainable
was not constitutional in 2001, what would make it constitutional
in 2006?
|
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.
|
Here’s the story:
In
2001 Baltimore Presbytery sent an overture (01-19) asking that GA
adopt an authoritative interpretation that would have had virtually
the same effect as Recommendation 5 of the PUP Task Force. It asked
the GA to declare that:
“The
consciences of many faithful Presbyterians have been troubled by
the apparent conflict between G-6.0106b, which forbids the ordination
of (among others) homosexual persons in faithful, monogamous relationships,
and several other clauses of the Book of Order …,” and
that “the 213th General Assembly (2001) concludes that the
above disagreement does not involve an essential of the Reformed
Faith (G-6.0107b).”
And
so, Baltimore contended,
“Governing
bodies, which are made up of persons reflecting those reasonable
differences, will reach different conclusions regarding the priority
to be given to G-6.0106b and the other references cited. It is the
authoritative interpretation of this General Assembly that such
differences are reasonable interpretations of the Constitution as
it presently stands, and may lead, without forming the basis of
either disciplinary or remedial action, to different actions with
regard to the ordination of homosexual persons in faithful, monogamous
relationships.”
In
other words, Baltimore asked the General Assembly to:
-
declare that G-6.0106b is not an essential of Reformed faith and
polity; and
-
permit
ordaining governing bodies to “reach different conclusions”
about the necessity of requiring G-6.0106b’s mandates for
ordination.
Doesn’t
this sound strangely similar to Recommendation 5 of the PUP report?
The
2001 ACC responded as follows:
“Overture
01-19 seeks to achieve a new authoritative interpretation of the Constitution
by identifying several citations within the Book of Order that are
perceived to be in conflict with
G-6.0106b…
“This
approach is flawed because the results desired cannot be achieved
by this method. Changes in the text of the Book of Order are made
by amendment…
“Individual
citations in the Book of Order that seem contradictory to some persons
cannot be changed by an act of the General Assembly alone. The method
of revoking portions of the Book of Order is by the amendment process.”
Like
the present PUP report, Baltimore’s 2001 overture explicitly
said it did not call for “changes in the text of the Book
of Order.” It asked only for an “authoritative
interpretation.” But the 2001 ACC quite correctly saw
that the effect of adopting that particular “authoritative
interpretation” would have amended the text of the Book of
Order, an action GA cannot take on its own authority, as a matter
of constitutional order.
Fast
forward to 2006. The current ACC breaks continuity with all previous
ACC counsel by putting its stamp of constitutional approval on this
previously discredited concept for an AI: “The recommended
authoritative interpretation is clear and within the power of the
General Assembly to approve if it chooses.”
Our
question is this: How could the 2001 ACC declare that it was NOT
within the power the GA to make an AI of this kind, but the 2006
ACC can say that it IS within the power of GA? At least in 2001
the ACC dealt with the areas of contradiction, but in 2006, the
ACC does not even acknowledge that the proposed AI might over-ride
the Constitution.
Baltimore’s
rationale has passages that eerily resemble the rationale of the
PUP Task Force for its recommendation 5:
“The
proposed authoritative interpretation does not change G-6.0106b,
which derives from the understanding, evidently supported by a majority
of Presbyterians, that homosexual activity is sinful and therefore
a bar to ordination. The Presbytery of Baltimore cannot agree with
this theological understanding and has concurred with an overture
to the General Assembly to remove it from the Constitution. Nevertheless,
the Presbytery of Baltimore lives within the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.), disagreeing with the position taken by the majority, believing
that it is not an essential tenet of the reformed faith…”
|
“To
prevent this impasse from leading to a splintering of the church,
a middle ground must be found. This authoritative interpretation
of the Constitution recognizes that some find an internal conflict
in the Constitution because of G-6.0106b, and others find G-6.0106b
to be consistent with the rest of the Constitution. How individuals
interpret Bible ultimately leads them to different conclusions on
these matters. (See the sidebar concerning this point.) The authoritative
interpretation leaves intact the constitutional provisions regarding
homosexuality that the church has adopted, finds that the disagreements
surrounding them do not involve an essential tenet of the Reformed
faith, and allows ordaining bodies to resolve the possible internal
conflicts of the Constitution in accordance with their theological
understanding of biblical teachings on homosexuality.”
(Rationale
for Overture 01-19)
Exactly what has changed since 2001?
Factors
that might seem relevant to that question:
1.
Amendment A of 2001 was overwhelmingly defeated by the presbyteries.
|
NOTE
ON: “How individuals interpret the Bible ultimately
leads them to different conclusions on these matters.”
Baltimore’s
Overture 01-19 expressed the same fallacy about the authority and
interpretation of Scripture now seen again in the written report of
the PUP Task Force and in the ACC response to overtures. (“A
person can only repent of conduct he or she genuinely believes to
be sinful.”)
That
fallacy is the unwillingness to accept the interpretation of Scripture
made by the whole church given through the confessional and constitutional
interpretation and application of Scripture. The whole church instructs
and gives boundaries for the individual interpretation of Scripture
in our polity. This church’s own interpretation trumps individual
interpretation of Scripture. G-6.0108 makes clear that the conscience
of an officer is bound, not by his personal interpretation
of Scripture, but by the interpretation of Scripture adopted by the
whole church in the Constitution. Persons who cannot accept the church’s
interpretation are not coerced to change their views, but neither
is the church coerced to approve them as officers.
|
The
2001 GA officially answered Baltimore’s Overture 01-19 by
adopting a different overture that proposed and sent to the presbyteries
an actual constitutional amendment (“Amendment A”)
that would have removed G-6.0106b and added language to the G-6.0106a
that said, “[Officers’] suitability to hold office
is determined by the governing body where the examination for
ordination or installation takes place, guided by scriptural and
constitutional standards, under the authority and Lordship of
Jesus Christ.”
Orderly
process worked in 2001. The ACC gave correct advice that an actual
amendment was required to accomplish Baltimore’s goal. GA
responded accordingly and proposed an actual Book of Order amendment.
The presbyteries deliberated and acted, decisively rejecting Amendment
A. The will of the whole church was heard and heeded.
2.
The PUP Report is being marketed as a brand-new idea.
The
Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church,
formed in 2001, now presents its report with lots of fanfare,
intentional institutional support, and an extensive marketing
campaign, as if it presents a new idea. It does not. The proposed
authoritative interpretation is no more than Baltimore’s
2001 proposal, albeit recycled and repackaged in finer wrapping.
Calling it an “Authoritative Interpretation” is an
end-run that avoids a presbytery vote, but will only hasten constitutional
dissolution.
How
can such a plan possibly expect to bring us peace, unity, and
purity?
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.
|
