We
have a constitutional form of government. There are two parts to our
constitution: Part I is The Book of Confessions. The
Book of Order, Part II, consists of our Form of Government (G
section), Directory for Worship (W section), and Rules of Discipline
(D section). It is our constitutional book of polity, defining how
we agree to live together in unity.
Taken together,
and taken seriously and obediently, our constitution is an important
source of peace, unity, and purity for our denomination, because of
its obligation and intent to be faithful to Scripture.
Constitutions
must be interpreted and applied to specific situations. Authoritative
interpretations carry the weight of telling the church the meaning
of some part of the constitution. Only two bodies in the PC(USA) can
issue authoritative interpretations. One is the church’s high
court; we call it the General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial
Commission (GA-PJC). Whenever the court renders a decision, it is
interpreting the constitution; hence, authoritative interpretation.
The court gives us authoritative interpretations of the constitution
regularly.
The
other body that may render an authoritative interpretation is the
General Assembly. The G.A. does that on much rarer occasions. Most
decisions of General Assemblies do not constitute interpretations
of the constitution, even though no decision of a G.A. should be made
without reference to both parts of the constitution.
The 1978 authoritative interpretation is the most contested
The most referred
to, and most contested, authoritative interpretation is the one adopted
by the General Assembly in 1978. It says, “homosexual practice
does not accord with the requirements for ordination set forth in
Form of Government.” It is an interpretation of Scripture and
of our Book of Confessions (4.087 and 7.249). It also is
applied to our Book of Order. Because this AI has been challenged
repeatedly, it has been repeatedly reaffirmed since 1978 and stands
as the authoritative interpretation of the church constitution on
this matter.
The AI
will be contested again in June
The oft-reaffirmed
1978 authoritative interpretation will be challenged again at the
General Assembly in June. There will be overtures seeking to remove
it and any other AI on the subject (including numerous rulings of
the GA-PJC that have upheld and interpreted the constitution on this
matter). And there will be Recommendation 5 in the PUP report that
will interpret another paragraph of the Book of Order (G-6.0108)
to permit what this AI does not allow.
Interpretation
of the constitution is a powerful tool. When its effect is to change
the meaning of the constitution, as in the case of the proposed AI
of the PUP task force, it is an illegitimate tool. And the only recourse
is its defeat by a General Assembly unwilling to change the constitution
without the consent of its presbyteries.
Return
to Home Page
