Witherspoon Society downplays ‘essentials,’ calls for deletion of AI and G-6.0106b
The Layman Online, September 15, 2005
Saying that “any definitive listing of ‘essentials’ by a governing body is not in the spirit” of constitutional provisions, the executive committee of the Witherspoon Society is calling for the deletion of both the present Authoritative Interpretation on ordination and the “fidelity/chastity” clause of the Book of Order.
In a statement titled, “A Time for Conflict Avoidance … or for Courageous Action?” that criticizes the report of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church, the executive committee also called for the rejection of a recommendation that asks the 217th General Assembly to take no further actions on ordination issues “because it once again extends years of delay in exercising fairness and respect toward our brothers and sisters in Christ.”
The Witherspoon Society is one of the groups committed to repealing the denomination’s constitutional “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard.
While agreeing with the Task Force report’s emphasis on discernment, the statement says that such an emphasis “seems to rest on an assumption that the process of discernment can be separated from action. True discernment cannot proceed in a vacuum of inaction. We agree with the Task Force that discernment must take place in an atmosphere of safety and mutual respect. Safety and respect are impossible, however, when one group is allowed to take part only as second-class members of the community, entering the discussion as ‘the problem,’ whose very presence is subject to question. This is an example of how the call for discernment is weakened by lack of attention to the realities of power.”
Commenting on the task force’s report recommending a new Authoritative Interpretation, the statement says that “defining ‘essential tenets’ is not appropriate” and that the proposed Authoritative Interpretation would “place increased emphasis on the examination of candidates for ordination. This may well put pressure on nominating committees, sessions, Committees on Preparation for Ministry and presbyteries, to subject candidates to inappropriate and uneven scrutiny on matters of both faith and ‘manner of life.’ This problem could be reduced if the AI is supplemented to reiterate that any definitive listing of ‘essentials’ by a governing body is not in the spirit of G-6.0108, and therefore has no status in a judicial review of an action taken by a governing body.”
Earlier, Ken Smith, president of the Witherspoon Society, declared that he is “very pleased” with the task force’s recommendation that the General Assembly issue an authoritative interpretation that would essentially allow ordaining bodies – regional presbyteries and local sessions – the right to determine whether the ban on ordaining practicing homosexuals is essential.
And Gene TeSelle, the group’s issues analyst, called for some clarification. He noted that the task force’s final report said that “it expects the candidate to accept the essentials of Reformed faith and polity ‘as determined by the examining body.’ If I understand the spirit of the report, this passage means that the determination is one that emerges from the examination process itself. The TTF ought to clarify this point; otherwise we would have the same set of essentials being imposed each time a candidate is examined, which is not in the spirit of either the Adopting Act of 1729, G-6.0108, or the TTF’s own report.”