Commentary
A passing view of justice
By Forrest A. Norman III, The Layman, August 25, 2011
“Pass.”
Such was the pronouncement of ecclesiastical law rendered by the esteemed General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) in one of two seminal cases on ordination standards in the post 10A era of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
In Parnell (et. al.) v. Presbytery of San Francisco, cynical traditionalists had predicted an outcome which would open the door to homosexual ordinations, anticipating a decision based upon a relativistic post-modernist Scriptural interpretation. The cynics have been disappointed. Optimistic traditionalists held out hope that while the language of 10A seemed less restrictive, the church court would surely uphold the Scriptures which give the church meaning. The optimists have been disappointed. Progressive church activists were waiting for validation by a judicial manifesto ushering in the new view of Scriptural interpretation. The progressives have been disappointed. All who look to the courts for guidance, for justice and for principles of law must look somewhere other than the GAPJC because the GAPJC decided not to decide.
Adroitly sidestepping any hint at substance, the GAPJC, in its own words “decline[d] to interpret provisions that no longer exist.” The fact that the provision which was clearly violated absolutely existed at the time the ordination decision at issue was rendered was of no consequence to the commission, which apparently was determined to avoid controversy like an ostrich with its head in the sand. How determined were they to avoid anything resembling a pronouncement? In remanding the question of whether there was a departure from doctrine they said – again in their own words – “this commission is not ruling on whether doctrinal error or abuse of discretion occurred.”
In a remedial case alleging a doctrinal error, it would seem that a pronouncement on doctrinal error one way or another would be in order. In trying to give themselves cover, the opinion claims that it was “not evident from the language of the decision whether or not the SPJC [Synod of the Pacific PJC] ruled upon this matter,” although they admittedly took the case in recognizing that “substantial evidence was presented to the SPJC about Scriptural and confessional interpretations concerning sexual behavior.” Even the otherwise shallow concurring opinion picked up on the fact that the SPJC did, in fact, render a finding on the very matters at issue.
The concurring opinion is illogical and vapid, simply calling on future GAPJCs to forebear from offering opinions. Well, actually it goes further, asking everyone from presbyteries, synods, the denomination, and all individuals, to “mutually forebear” from expressing opinions, telling us “we should place more emphasis on our reluctance to micromanage the decisions presbyteries reach on the ordination of those who express the need to depart from Scriptural or confessional interpretations that challenge what others regard as essential.” Is this really the best guidance the GAPJC can come up with? Read it twice – it really makes no sense. But that is now part of the authoritative jurisprudence of the PCUSA.
The dissent does not disagree with the result as much as it would go further in advancing the principle that micromanagement is a sin in the PCUSA. “For an appellate body to be empowered to micromanage the ordination process without there being extraordinary reasons would be ill-advised” warns the dissent. Since when did this case become about micromanagement? The very reason we have judicial review is to analyze decisions from lower courts, with the highest ideals of justice being not in deference to the decision, but in reference to principles of justice applied to the facts in exacting detail. Appellate courts are supposed to subject the lower court to scrutiny.
The GAPJC was not sequestered, and certainly was well aware of the importance of its task in rendering a ruling in the Parnell case. The level of controversy surrounding the ordination issue cannot have escaped their notice, and the potential for harm has certainly been apparent to even the dullest observers among us. As the first opinion interpreting the new provisions of the post amendment 10A PCUSA constitution, the precedent it would set, the guidance it would give, understandably will shape the future of the PCUSA for years to come. Yet even more important than any realization of the significance and breadth of the sought after pronouncement should have been the desire to make a proper pronouncement of ecclesial law founded upon the essential tenets of the faith.
To sit on the highest ecclesiastical court in a denomination is an honor, and with that honor comes an obligation to devote Scriptural and spiritual discernment in rendering decisions which interpret the principles of the denomination for the body. If they were not up for the challenge, they should have resigned. Instead, they intentionally opted for an indecisive course of political expedience, claiming it was based upon some procedural principle which we all know was nothing more than an excuse for not deciding.
One of the greatest legal minds in American history, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., observed “the remoter and more general aspects of the law are those which give it universal interest. It is through them that you not only become a great master in your calling, but connect your subject with the universe and catch an echo of the infinite, a glimpse of its unfathomable process, a hint of the universal law.”[1] The principle of “pass” falls far short of the higher calling of the law. And it does not
portend well for the future of a denomination sorely in need of spiritual definition and leadership.
Forrest A. Norman III is a member of Hudson Presbyterian Church (EPC) in Hudson, Ohio. He is chairman of the Board of Directors and chief executive officer of the Presbyterian Lay Committee.
[1] Holmes, The Path of the Law, 1897.