Backlash from the Presbyterian courts

[andrewlittle]

Well, the backlash has occurred - the PCUSA judiciary has ruled on a technicality - of course, a technicality that still bars ordination for GLBT. While the General Assembly allowed for declaring a "scruple" (a candidate could voice disagreement with a church "law") and that a local presbytery could then decide whether that disagreement was significant, the court said it wasn't written clearly enough.

The court decided that the wording allowed a candidate to disagree with the "fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness" clause, it did NOT say they could ACT on that disagreement.

I guess you can disagree all you want as long as you don't live authentically as LGBT. As-holes!

Presbyterian Outlook, February 13, 2008
http://www.pres-outlook.com/tabid/21...9/Default.aspx

TOP COURT PROHIBITS 'SCRUPLING' FIDELITY-CHASTITY STANDARD

By Leslie Scanlon, Outlook National Reporter

LOUISVILLE - The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) has ruled that candidates for ordination must comply with the sexual behavior standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), even if they disagree in conscience with them. The GAPJC, in a landmark ruling dated Feb. 11 on a case from Pittsburgh Presbytery, declared that the authoritative interpretation that the General Assembly approved in 2006 does not permit exceptions to the requirement in the PCUSA's ordination standards, which say that candidates must practice fidelity if they are married or chastity if they are single.

It described the "fidelity and chastity" provision as "a mandatory standard that cannot be waived." And it upheld language from a prior Synod of the Trinity PJC ruling that made a distinction between allowing departures from the church's standards related to belief - but not departures related to behavior. The GAPJC, the highest court in the PCUSA, endorsed language from the synod PJC ruling which states the authoritative interpretation the General Assembly approved "allows candidates to express disagreement with the wording or meaning of provisions of the constitution, but does not permit disobedience to those behavioral standards."

The GAPJC went on to say, "the fidelity and chastity standard may only be changed by a constitutional amendment. Until that occurs, individual candidates, officers, examining and governing bodies must adhere to it."

In another ruling issued on the same day, the GAPJC overturned a decision of the PJC of the Synod of Alaska-Northwest related to whether a presbytery could pass a resolution declaring every mandate in the Book of Order to be an essential of Reformed polity. In discussing such policies, the GAPJC declared one unconstitutional and stated that "it is not permissible for a presbytery or a session to define "essentials of Reformed faith and polity" outside of the examination of any candidate for office. Such a determination must be made only in the context of a specific examination of an individual candidate."

These GAPJC rulings -- a set of three -- mark the first time the church's highest court has considered cases resulting from the assembly's adoption in 2006 of the recommendations of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the PCUSA. In the Pittsburgh case, the parties who won a favorable ruling from the Synod of the Trinity PJC appealed some language of that ruling, particularly the question of whether departures of conscience can be declared from the church's standards on matters that relate to behavior as well as those of belief.

The GAPJC stated that the theological task force, which presented the controversial authoritative interpretation to the 2006 Assembly, stated in its rationale that the authoritative interpretation was a "manner of life standard" that "requires ordaining and installing bodies to examine carefully both the doctrinal views and the manner of life of those elected to office."

The examining body then would determine whether that departure based on conscience -- known as a "scruple" -- would be permitted or would rise to such a level that it would be considered a departure from an essential of Reformed faith and polity and so could not be allowed. The theological task force, in its rationale, stated that the PC(USA) constitution "puts 'faith and polity' -- belief and behavior -- on an equal footing, as they were in 1729, when scruples were permitted in matters of 'doctrine, discipline, and government.'"

But the GAPJC ruled that the General Assembly did not adopt that rationale section, so "as finally adopted by the General Assembly, the Authoritative Interpretation does not equate 'polity' with 'behavior.'" And it stated that the church has required those being ordained "to conform their actions, though not necessarily their beliefs or opinions, to certain standards in those contexts in which the church has deemed conformity to be necessary or essential."

The GAPJC ruled that departures based on conscience would not be permitted from the "fidelity and chastity standard." It agreed with the Synod of the Trinity PJC that "no presbytery may grant an exception to any mandatory church-wide behavioral ordination standard" and that "under our polity, violations of behavioral standards are to be addressed through repentance and reconciliation, not by exception or exemption."

The GAPJC also dispelled the idea that presbyteries could pass resolutions stating they would enforce all mandatory provisions of the Book of Order. "Adopting statements about mandatory provisions of the Book of Order for ordination and installation of officers falsely implies that other governing bodies might not be similarly bound; that is, that they might choose to restate or interpret the provisions differently, fail to adopt such statements, or possess some flexibility with respect to such provisions," the GAPJC stated.

In a third case, an appeal by Washington Presbytery of portions of a ruling by the Synod of the Trinity PJC, the GAPJC ruled that a permanent judicial commission is not compelled to require or even encourage parties in a dispute to engage in efforts at biblical peacemaking, based on the model described in the 18th chapter of the gospel of Matthew.

It's likely to be the ruling in the Pittsburgh case that gains the strongest scrutiny by the church -- particularly as two cases of candidates declaring scruples regarding the "fidelity and chastity" language already have emerged from the presbyteries. On January 15, San Francisco Presbytery voted 167 to 151 to approve as "ready for examination" Lisa Larges, a lesbian who works for the advocacy group, That All May Freely Serve.

And the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area voted 196 to 79 on Jan. 26 to restore the ordination of Paul Capetz, a gay seminary professor who voluntarily set aside his ordination in 2000 in protest over the PC(USA)'s ordination standards. Capetz has said he would not promise to be celibate, but his objections are theological, not because he's currently involved in a relationship.

Any decisions church courts might make in individual cases such as theirs would have to take into account the GAPJC rulings just issued.

Copyright (c) 2008 The Presbyterian Outlook

[antonyh]

I'm trying to understand the "power" structure here. Did the Judicial Commission find a loop hole in the General Assembly's ruling and exploit that to bar ordination or are they overstepping their bounds? In the Methodist Church the Judicial Council can be overridden by the General Conference.

It seems that conservatives have been good at stacking the Judicial Commission and Judicial Council with their people.

[andrewlittle]

Book of Order 6.0108b. Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and
Sacrament.

According to the minutes of the General Assembly (2006):

The Assembly rejected the minority report (by a vote of 287/234/0), then defeated a motion to refer recommendations 5 & 6 (by a vote of 281/234) and then voted to approve the following by a vote of (298/221/1):
5. The Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church recommends that the 217th General Assembly (2006) approve the following authoritative interpretation of section G-6.0108 of the Book of Order:
1 In the examination of elders and deacons, church sessions are governed by the same constitutional provisions as is the presbytery in its examination of ministers and candidates. While the language in this paper is directed to the presbytery, the advice is commended to sessions for their use as well.

a. The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government of the Book of Order set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation.
b. These standards are determined by the whole church, after the careful study of Scripture and theology, solely by the constitutional process of approval by the General Assembly with the approval of the presbyteries. These standards may be interpreted by the General Assembly and its Permanent Judicial Commission.
c. Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards to those elected to office. These determinations include:
(1) Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office,
(2) Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation.
d. Whether the examination and ordination and installation decision comply with the constitution of the PCUSA, and whether the ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a
candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing bodies.

e. All parties should endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another’s decisions, according the presumption of wisdom to ordaining/installing bodies in examining candidates and to the General Assembly, with presbyteries’ approval, in setting standards.

That is the dry wording of the General Assemblies adoption of the Authoritative Interpretation of the Book of Order.

Without using the word "scruple", the authors of the interpretation (Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church) referenced the tradition practice of declaring scruples - disagreements with tenets of faith. The local presbytery, as the ordaining body, was to determine whether the scruple dealt with an "essential tenet" of faith. Basically, it gave something akin to "local option" to the presbytery.

The ruling, however, states that, while it deals with scruples with regard to belief, it does not deal with behavior. The court decided, then, that the presbyteries could not exempt behavior that was against the constitution - namely the chastity in singleness wording.

Many of us where concerned all along that this was not the way to deal with the issue. It will take a constitutional amendment to overcome the judicial decision, I think.

[Daniel]

But it sounds that though one has to be married or celibate to be ordained. What happens it one lives in MA? or New York for that matter, where the Appellate Court recently decided that there is no bar to recognition legal gay marriage?

Do these State matters have anything to do with this, or am I just muddling things up (church politics & matters of State) in my mind?

In any case, the whole thing sounds like 'doll house' politics. Move tiny figures around, pretending that one is doing something big, but in reality, the actions being done are small small small.

Small minded that is.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by antonyh

I'm trying to understand the "power" structure here. Did the Judicial Commission find a loop hole in the General Assembly's ruling and exploit that to bar ordination or are they overstepping their bounds? In the Methodist Church the Judicial Council can be overridden by the General Conference.

It seems that conservatives have been good at stacking the Judicial Commission and Judicial Council with their people.

As a United Methodist "wonk," let me clarify this, Antony. I believe that United Methodist General Conference can only "override" the Judicial Council in the same way that Congress can override the Supreme Court--that is, by adopting legislation that changes the basic law in question.

I'm curious if the Presbyterian Judicial Commission has been "packed" by right wingers the way our Judicial Council has, or is their ruling a fair ruling given the actual letter of the law?

I know a member of the Presbyterian Church's Task Force on Peace and Unity--I'm sorry about this decision, but I always kind of questioned how effective their action really was. They really never challenged the demeaning language against LGBT people in the Constitution of the Church, they just tried to make a way for individuals, sessions and presbyteries to get around it. It appears that was not a very satisfactory solution.

My friend defended the Task Force's approach as "moderate" and "compromising" and discounted Soulforce's more "radical" approach as "counter-productive." Seems to me now like the only way forward is a radical rejection of all church teaching and polity that demeans God's LGBT people--no compromise!

Sorry. I'm particularly sorry that this seems to mean that another church Task Force or Study Group has met (in this case the Presbyterian Task Force on Peace and Unity) and issued it's report after so much hard work and pain and suffering all to no avail! These internal studies have gone on for over 30 years amongst Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians and others--all to no avail!

Steven Webster

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by u-dog

The ONLY way forward for the Church is to ACTUALLY CHANGE what the book of Order says and to make provision for GLBT people to live with one another in covenant relationships.

Essentially, that was what I was talking about when I said:

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Many of us where concerned all along that this was not the way to deal with the issue. It will take a constitutional amendment to overcome the judicial decision, I think.

The approach to take to finally put this to bed would be to change the constitution - the Book of Order.

That being said, however, the wording that says:
"c. Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards to those elected to office. These determinations include:
(1) Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office,
(2) Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation."
... does not make a distinction between belief and behavior.

The court decided that a "scruple" only describes a belief - not a bahavior. The AI actually says, however, a "departure" not a "scruple". The reference to "scruples" was included in the rationale for the PUP's recommendation. The rationale, however, was not made part of the AI. Hence, the court made a determination of the AI on a concept that was not included in the AI.

A departure is not clearly defined, while a "scruple" is defined by previous practice dating back to the early 20th century. The court, in its decision, basically ruled on the basis of "scruples", even though that is not included, in word or concept, in the AI.

It seems that a "departure" could not limited either a belief or behavioral departure, and no language made any attempt to do so.

Now, when you were ordained (me too), you did not claim a "departure" from the "essential tenets", so we have to live up to our vows. The vows of someone who did claim a "departure", however, would be absent a pledge to that particular tenet, and they would not be breaking their vow.

OK Andy! Tell me why I'm wrong about this!

That I can't do, since we all knew this was a bullshit way to go about it in the first place. It was a cheesy way of making a decision without making a decision. It was also predictable, I suppose, that the court decision used the exact language that was printed in a Presbyterian Layman article about the AI that dates back to late 2006.

We shall see how this affects Lisa and Paul in the months to come.