Clerk got it partially right
The Layman February 2002 Volume 35, Number 1, February 8, 2002
At long last, Kirkpatrick, the chief constitutional officer of the denomination, has called for enforcement of the Book of Order, including the “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard that is being strongly reaffirmed in the current vote on Amendment 01-A.
Still, Kirkpatrick needs 1) to clear up the confusion his own office has created and 2) to reassure Presbyterians that he is not applying a double standard in his consideration of what constitutes an egregious violation of the constitution.
In a Jan. 3 letter to stated clerks of synods and presbyteries, Kirkpatrick urged the clerks “to join me in faithfully upholding our Constitution in the year ahead.” He called G-6.0106b (the “fidelity/chastity” clause) “the ‘law of the church’ … No session or presbytery has the right to ordain anyone who is unwilling to live by the … standard, and I encourage you to faithfully uphold this provision in your governing body.”
The trouble is that Kirkpatrick’s office also has issued “Polity Reflection # 19” (Story is on page 2). Incredibly, the official opinion of the clerk says that since no one knows what “chastity” means, governing bodies can decide their own definitions when they examine candidates for ordination. That places the denomination back at ground zero, with a church law that can be interpreted in ludicrously different ways.
That’s exactly what the Presbytery of Redwoods did when it ordained Kathleen Morrison, who let everyone know that she is a lesbian in a sexual partnership with another woman. But Morrison told the presbytery that she viewed herself as “chaste.” The presbytery accepted her self-definition, and Morrison has become the national poster-pastor for gay activists.
Kirkpatrick has not publically taken steps to correct this offense nor has he repudiated or revised the polity reflection. As long as it remains a standard for interpreting G-6.0106b, anything goes. Even the defeat of Amendment 01-A, which is virtually assured, will not prevent presbyteries from applying their own rules and ordaining practicing gays and adulterers in defiance of the clear language of the “fidelity/chastity” clause.
Kirkpatrick’s letter to other clerks also seemed to suggest that he deems it even more egregious that some congregations might withhold or redirect their voluntary per-capita share of the operating costs for the General Assembly. “It is a violation of our ordination vows to promote … the defiance of constitutionally sanctioned governing body directives,” he wrote, without citing any constitutional provision or judicatory precedent.
That’s a false, but serious threat. Ministers can be defrocked for violating their ordination standards. Elders can be ex-communicated. Yet, per-capita payment is – and always has been – voluntary. It is not a “directive” of the General Assembly. The General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission has ruled that payment is voluntary. Numerous general assemblies have rejected overtures that would make per-capita payments compulsory.
Kirkpatrick’s threat is, at best, a serious misunderstanding of the very constitution that he promised to “preserve and defend” when he took his oath of office. At worst, it is an unprecedented personal attack on those who seek to be faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ in the way they spend the tithes and offerings from members of their congregations.