The action of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in issuing an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) on marriage does much more than you probably think. Yes, it authorizes pastors who live in states where it is legal to do so to perform same-sex marriages. But it does more than that. I tried to warn them, but to no avail. The AI issued by the General Assembly is now the rule of law in the PCUSA. It authorizes a teaching elder to take part in any such marriage that is legal in the state where they serve. Not only can a pastor marry a same-sex couple, the AI authorizes PCUSA clergy to participate in any such marriage that the state legalizes. As polygamists are now advocating for the right to marry and a throuple (three women) have wed in Massachusetts, this is not fear-mongering. This is projection further down a path where the PCUSA now says her people may wander. Not only is this ruling contrary to all of the foundational documents of the Presbyterian church including Scripture, the Confessions and Order of Worship, it is also contrary to the idea that the state does not govern the church in matters of faith.
But the commissioners of the General Assembly would not listen. Not to the counsel of the Scriptures, not to the counsel of the Confessions and not even to the counsel of their own Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC). The ACC recommended against the proposed AI and the General Assembly knew it.
The Advisory Committee on the Constitution advises that the 221st General Assembly (2014) disapprove Item 10-03
This overture proposes an authoritative interpretation which would allow the exercise of pastoral discretion and freedom of conscience in conducting a marriage service for any couple as permitted by the “laws of the place where the couple seeks to be married.” It suggests an interpretation contrary to the clear statement of W-4.9000.
Section W-4.9001 and related citations (W-4.9002a, W-4.9004, W-4.9006) limit marriage to couples who are “a woman and a man.” Because these statements are clear and unambiguous, they can not be interpreted in a manner that is inconsistent with their plain and ordinary meaning.
The Book of Order is not based upon state and civil law, but the church’s understanding of Scripture and Reformed theology. As noted in Southard v Presbytery of Boston (GAPJC 2012, 220-02), “While the PCUSA is free to amend its definition of marriage, a change in state law does not amend the Book of Order.”
Freedom of conscience is a foundational principle of the PCUSA (G-2.0105) but must be exercised within certain bounds. The exercise of freedom of conscience in and of itself is not necessarily a violation of polity or an obstruction of constitutional governance. Such freedom of conscience, however, is not freedom of action. All persons in ordered ministry have a duty to fulfill constitutionally mandated responsibilities.
If it is the will of the assembly to change the definition of marriage, such a change is better accomplished by amendment of W-4.9000 rather than by authoritative interpretation.
The assembly was committed to a course of action that was aligned with the express desires of certain individuals without concern that they were on the wrong side of a Holy God. But theology aside, the legitimate purpose of an AI is to clarify ambiguous language in the constitution. Clearly the AI issued by the 221st GA exceeds this legitimate purpose. If you’re not alarmed by the substance of redefining marriage through an AI maybe you will be alarmed by the fact that the action of fewer than 500 people is now binding on 1.8 million. The AI on marriage was an expedient way to achieve a contrivance that demonstrates an abuse of power and the manipulation of the General Assembly’s otherwise laborious legislative process.
Some will argue that the AI doesn’t really affect all that many people as it only applies to pastors serving in states where the definition of marriage has been expanded beyond one man and one woman. But that, my friends, is a list that grows everyday. Nearly half of all PCUSA clergy serve in states where same-sex marriage is now legal. One final point. The AI includes a sentence that is designed to protect pastors from being compelled or forced to perform same-sex marriages. It reads,
In no case shall any teaching elder’s conscience be bound to conduct any marriage service for any couple except by his or her understanding of the Word, and the leading of the Holy Spirit.
The problem here is the whole issue of “private interpretation.”
Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.
For if I mistake not, I have given a summary of religion in all its parts, and have digested it into such an order as may make it not difficult for any one, who is rightly acquainted with it, to ascertain both what he ought principally to look for in Scripture, and also to what head he ought to refer whatever is contained in it. Having thus, as it were, paved the way, I shall not feel it necessary, in any Commentaries on Scripture which I may afterwards publish, to enter into long discussions of doctrines or dilate on common places, and will, therefore, always compress them. In this way the pious reader will be saved much trouble and weariness, provided he comes furnished with a knowledge of the present work as an essential prerequisite.
This is the approach to Biblical interpretation that inspires the production of study Bibles with marginal notes and other helps that assist the lay person in apprehending the plain meaning of the Scriptures for themselves – that the Bible might be applied to life. But “private interpretation” was never intended to be “private” in the way we think of that term. Private interpretation was intended to be done in open, active Christian fellowship, alongside other believers and in conversation with a more mature disciple (pastor) shepherding along the way. But what do you do when the leadership of the church itself has clearly departed from the way and contrived a “private interpretation” that is contrary to the plain teaching of the Word of God? You raise the alarm, you protest and then, if necessary, you “come out from among them.”
23 Comments. Leave new
“In no case shall any teaching elder’s conscience be bound to conduct any marriage service for any couple except by his or her understanding of the Word, and the leading of the Holy Spirit.”
Carmen, here’s the problem with this clause as it applies to me serving a church in New England where the civil authorities legalized same gender marriages several years ago. I would refuse a request (which I would do on Biblical, Confessional, and Dir. of Worship grounds), my session could approve. At that point the leadership of the congregation is then divided, and the vow to “further the peace, unity, and purity of the church” has been broken.
Furthermore, the entire Same Gender Marriage A.I. is built on the pretense that marriage services are “pastoral care.” When I refuse to perform a same gender marriage, I am now refusing to provide “pastoral care.” This further breaks at least part of the last vow, “…teaching faith and caring for people….”
So now on at least two counts I will have broken my Ordination Vows. Does this not set me up for disciplinary charges or censure for actions that have nothing to do with same gender marriage?
Bob: Two points. -Marriage is an act of the secular state in essence. When you perform such you become an agent of that state, or act in proxy for the local county authorities that granted that license. That is a street that cuts both way, gay and non-gay. Marriage rites and ceremonies are not pastoral care. They are a function of the office. Would you marry a heterosexual male/female person(s) who professed Wiccan theological constructs even though they may be related to your biggest donor, or children of? . I would hope the answer is no. Is that pastoral care? Depends on interpretation. I do not see it as such.
– Ordination Vows? What vows, you take vows when you marry, to an constitution, Book of Order, denomination? Not a reformed concept. You are not a priest and your EP is not a Bishop. You agree to abide by the constitution written at the time. Beside the actions of said denomination renders whatever you agreed too at X such date null and void in my opinion. Let Boston Presbytery even try to discipline some one who declines to do a LGTBT event, I will buy tickets to that one. As I like to say, it is a Constitution, not a suicide pact. However you may interpret your “vows” I am sure there no clause requiring you to jump off the roof when everybody else is doing it.
The now-classic question with respect to the redefinition of marriage, to which there is no meaningful logical response, is this: why is the number 2 sacred?
That is, if marriage is not defined by God, and if marriage is not therefore a covenant between a man and woman, then why on earth should the definition constrain against more than 2 people being involved?
There is no answer, of course, but advocates of gay marriage (“mirage”) seem to care little for the long-term consequences of kicking the door down. It will be interesting to see how many of those who rallied for this cause will turn into the gatekeepers when the next special-interest group comes along.
Pastor Bob,
which vow would you rather break .. a vow to support the “PUP of the church”, or a vow to obey or be guided (depending on when you took your vows) by the Scriptures and the Confessions. In reality, you’d also be following the current Book of Order which still says Christian Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Here’s what I don’t understand. The Authoritative Interpretation allows pastors to conduct same-sex “marriages” immediately, even though they violate the Book of Order. What if the formal change to the Book of Order to permit same-sex “marriages” is not ratified and thus such ceremonies are still impermissible in PCUSA? Will all the illegal “marriages” then be stricken from the church records? Will letters be sent to all the people that went through such ceremonies, telling them that their “marriages” are invalid and that they are nullified?
The logic of the PCUSA escapes me, especially when they were specifically informed the AI was unlawful and could not be passed.
Amen
Does anyone know if a group (church, presbytery, synod) is planning to file an appeal, grievance, or disciplinary action, using the Book of Order procedures, to officially challenge the constitutional integrity of the AI (on procedural grounds) or the proposed amendment (which contradicts other sections of the constitution)? Could this come from an association of Presbyterians, like PFR or The Fellowship of Presbyterians? The Book of Order stipulates a 30 day window after the action that is being grieved. Even if the PCUSA judiciary committee were to quash it, at least the protest of unconstitutional actions would be on record.
The one point I will comment on is the “refusal to provide pastoral care”. Pastoral care can be offered in personal counseling, not just in marriage counseling. When someone comes to seek your service as a pastor to perform the same sex marriage, part of your pastoral care is to share with them the truth of the gospel and offer personal counsel to help them deal with their sin in the light rather than letting them live it in the dark. Therefore you are not denying them pastoral care but encouraging it. They are the ones that are refusing it if they choose to pursue that lifestyle.
I have recently heard of the British lady who wants to marry her horse: She considers her Stallion the love of her life, and (wait for it) a particularly close PERSON. I don’t know if this individual is a Presbyterian or what. I hope the future newlyweds have an apartment on the first floor.
PCUSA has hit “rock bottom” on the moral ladder. No matter how much rhetoric , PCUSA decisions and proclamations, judicial decisions, etc., the union of two same sex people will never be a marriage in the eyes of God!!
PCUSA has deteriorated to the role of blood sucker!
We, the GA, have done a great disservice to our brothers and sisters in the PCUSA by approving this AI. The PCUSA is now following the moral lead of society, not setting a moral standard for society. The slide down the slippery slope is picking up speed.
Unfortunately the ACC advised to the assembly at that time that an AI conflicting with the BOO was permissible. THE ACC LIED AND MISLED THE ASSEMBLY. The Stated Clerk agreed with the ACC. The Moderator followed suit. All are complicit in the error.
anything goes has been the AI for as long as i can remember. the only difference is now it’s in writing.
i was born and raised PCUSA. there were no rules. now everyone acts so surprised that it’s official.
“This does not mean that you can make the Scriptures mean whatever you want them to mean or that you can conceive of a meaning that is contrary to the plain and clear meaning of the words themselves. But that is precisely where postmodern Protestantism, evidenced by the actions of the PCUSA General Assembly, have led.” That’s very well said, Carmen. Sadly, such a whatever-you-want-them-to-mean reading of the Scriptures is now viewed as a PCUSA strength in the sense that’s it’s one theological perspective among a diversity of viewpoints. This diversity is celebrated as a way of glossing over deeply false beliefs within the PCUSA.
“Marriage is an act of the secular state in essence. When you perform such you become an agent of that state, or act in proxy for the local county authorities that granted that license. That is a street that cuts both way, gay and non-gay. Marriage rites and ceremonies are not pastoral care.”
this comment was posted at the end of June, it’s very important in understanding the PCUSA mindset.
the traditional Christian Church position is exactly the opposite of this comment. marriage is an act of the Church. in fact the secular laws that were devised to circumvent the Laws of God are still not recognized by the Catholic Church. it was Protestant theology that twisted the Biblical interpretation to what we have today, witnessed by the above quotation; an entire generation of Protestants have been brainwashed to believe in the supremacy of the rules of the secular state over the Laws of God. until this mindset changes peace is impossible. marriage rites and ceremonies along with the other sacraments of the Church are in fact the very definition of pastoral care. the neglect of this responsibility, passing it off to government politicians, is what created the mess we’re in now. two people married outside the Catholic Church without express permission from the Church are generally not recognized as man and wife even today, this is true for all baptized Catholics. many of the problems you’re seeing in the PCUSA are in no small part caused by these stray Catholics, who have infiltrated PCUSA to the highest levels. many of them are considered to be de facto excommunicated Catholics, who have a lot of resultant hatred towards the Church, including it’s traditional Bible based rules, based on the Ten Commandments, Laws of God. you’ll rarely see these folks actually admit any of this. whether it’s deliberate or not on their part only God knows, but i do believe there are enough of them deliberately trying to destroy Christian churches, all of them, from within it’s important to note.
Hi Bob,
Has anyone answered your question? I am wondering about this too. Is anyone planning to challenge the constitutionality of the AI. I hope to call some people today and inquire into this matter.
Amy
Carmen,
Just wondering if there are enough young people who are becoming pastors in the PCUSA to keep the denomination going…
I heard the horse soon left her in favor of your straw man.
Laberge reporting of a three way marriage turn out to be a just a triple selfie with no state endorsement. Apparantly we have not gotten to that critical Mass. yet. though we are talking the state of Massachusetts
“Although Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, the state does not recognize polygamous ones. Nevertheless, the three women …still entered into the three-way relationship. Brynn told The Sun newspaper: “In our eyes we are married.We had specialist lawyers draw up paperwork so our assets are equally divided.”
As for your inspiring theory of Catholic subterfuge in the PCUSA.
Again, We’re lacking the sign that we have a critical Mass of de facto excommunicated Catholics.
“In our eyes we are married.We had specialist lawyers draw up paperwork so our assets are equally divided.”
a very interesting comment. as i said elsewhere, it’s my belief that most of the gay marriage push, as well as other types of marriage, has to do with money, financial benefits.
why after they got government legal support was it necessary to get the churches involved? that’s the question.
since when does anyone in this society, or even the churches for that matter, have the guts to object to living together in sin? since when do we ever hear anyone say anything about cheating spouses, divorce and remarriage, virtually any of the sins of the flesh? they’re considered to be the norm at this point. God forbid anyone speak up and tell someone the truth about their sinful lifestyle, they’re labeled as unloving, uncharitable, or worse. so why force the gay marriage issue upon the churches, other than to make a statement, cause disruption, chaos and confusion among the faithful. i believe they’re trying to break the churches down from the inside, and that’s exactly what’s happening.
as for my comments regarding stray Catholics, de facto excommunicated, i agree, there’s probably no way to prove this. the comments are based on anecdotal evidence i see/hear in my travels. i talked to someone the other day who told me the local community Protestant church has “hundreds” of de facto excommunicated Catholic members. it’s inconceivable they don’t have issues related to this, subconscious as they may be. again, i believe on some level they are trying to take down the churches of Christ from within. only time will tell. if correct, what we’ll see in the end is a remnant Church, separate from the brick and mortar churches.
PCUSA is starting 1001 worshipping communities.
80% of those 30 and younger do not adhere to the traditional interpretation. In 10 years it will be very difficult to find a talented young pastor for denominations such as ECO.
I think the article is very helpful for people,it has solved my problem,thanks!
I every time emailed this webpage post page to all my
contacts, for the reason that if like to read it after that
my contacts will too.