Overture seeks to ‘hopefully overturn’ court ruling upholding ‘fidelity/chastity’ ordination standard
By Craig M. Kibler, February 22, 2008
John Knox Presbytery has approved an overture that seeks to “hopefully overturn” recent rulings by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission that presbyteries considering candidates for ordination or installation cannot depart from the “fidelity/chastity” requirement in the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Book of Order.
The overture, approved by the presbytery at a called meeting Feb. 16, targets Section G-6.0108 in the Book of Order – stressing local option in the examination of candidates for ordination and arguing that that the “fidelity/chastity” requirement is not an essential of the Reformed faith. It states:
- “The requirements of G-6.0108 apply equally to all ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (USA). G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).”
The overture was written by Mark Achtemeier, a member of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity. The task force’s report, approved by the 217th General Assembly in June 2006, includes an authoritative interpretation that keeps the current ordination standards in the PCUSA’s Constitution, but allows those who choose not to obey them to declare them to be non-essential. The presbytery also elected Achtemeier as an overture advocate to the 218th General Assembly, which meets June 21-28 in San Jose, Calif.
Five months after the 217th General Assembly approved the PUP task force’s report, John Knox Presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for Ministry unanimously recommended that the presbytery enroll Scott D. Anderson, the only openly homosexual member of the PUP task force, as an inquirer on track for ordination as a minister of Word and Sacrament. At the time, Anderson believed the PUP report’s authoritative interpretation opened the door for consideration of his request to be re-ordained in the PCUSA.
In November 2004, during the time that the PUP task force was working on its report, Achtemeier told presbytery commissioners that, “I have come to realize that I don’t want to be a part of the church that doesn’t have Scott in it.”
Letter to commissioners
In a letter provided to presbytery commissioners Feb. 15 regarding the overture, Achtemeier argued that it “would make it possible for the General Assembly to review, and hopefully to overturn, this recent PJC ruling. That way the recommendations of the PUP task force could continue to function in the life of our presbytery and denomination in the manner envisioned by the task force and specified in the rationale section of their recommendations.”
In criticizing the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission’s rulings, and affirming the report of the PUP task force, Achtemeier wrote that the court’s decision “effectively nullifies Recommendation 5 of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church (PUP). In brief, this PJC ruling makes it illegal for presbyteries to consider the conscientious objections (‘scruples’) of candidates for ordination when those objections involve the most controversial issues before our church. The PJC ruling thus serves to undermine all the work our own presbytery has done over the course of the past year preparing ourselves for making faithful and conscientious discernments regarding the gifts and calling of candidates under our care.”
The court’s rulings Feb. 11, each without dissent, are heartening to evangelicals – who have argued that G-6.0106b, the “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard in the Book of Order, should be followed – while dealing a blow to those who have relied on the scrupling permitted under the PUP report’s authoritative interpretation approved as part of the report of the PUP task force.
The court also ruled that, “while the General Assembly and the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission may interpret ordination standards set forth in the Book of Confessions and the Form of Government, the authoritative interpretation of the Theological Task on the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church adopted by the 217th General Assembly did not (and constitutionally could not) change any ordination standard, including the requirements set forth in G-6.0106b.”
Two recent cases, those of Lisa Larges and Paul Capetz, relied on scrupling G-6.0106b. In each case, the presbyteries approved the candidates. Both cases, one in San Francisco Presbytery and the other in the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area, face appeals.
Overture’s rationale
In its rationale, the overture argues that, “in applying our ordination standards, sessions and presbyteries must make case-by-case assessments whether the particular candidate before them departs from any standard in a way that constitutes a failure to adhere to ‘essentials’ of Reformed faith and polity (thus barring the candidate from ordained service).”
The rationale argues that ordination standards should “be applied with respect for the candidate’s freedom of conscience.” Respecting conscience in the application of standards, the overture states, “is not mere compromise, or pragmatism – rather, it reflects our deep theological conviction that conscience is a means by which God guides the beliefs and behavior of every person who professes faith in Jesus Christ.”
Citing an argument utilized in the report of the PUP task force, the rationale states that, “G-6.0108, as authoritatively interpreted by the 217th General Assembly, makes clear that individuals may declare principled objections (what we historically have called ‘scruples’) to our ordination standards, with respect to both belief and behavior. In all cases, sessions and presbyteries must give prayerful and careful consideration to such declarations, with due respect for freedom of conscience. However, sessions and presbyteries exercise collective discernment during examination, and are not required to accept a person’s departure from standards; a scruple may be rejected if the body believes that the matter at issue is so important – that is, ‘essential’ – it renders the candidate incapable of communion with the church (Adopting Act of 1729).”
Defining ‘essentials’
The overture then argues that the PCUSA “has always resisted efforts to define ‘essentials’ in the abstract. When a person has been elected to serve, that person’s fitness must be assessed in light of his or her statement of faith, answers to questions posed during examination, demonstrated manner of life, interaction with the session or presbytery over the course of care, fit for the particular position to which he or she has been elected, and reasons (scriptural, theological, and intentional) for declaring a departure from our standards. Where the examining body determines that a departure must be considered ‘essential’ with regard to a particular candidate, that person may not be ordained or installed. In all cases, however, we require that assessments of fitness be made pursuant to a conversation, not a checklist. For any governing body to declare a standard ‘essential’ in the abstract, for all t
ime and persons, is wholly at odds with the historic practice and theological commitments of the Presbyterian Church.”
The rationale then criticizes the ruling of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, arguing that, in regard to the “fidelity/chastity” ordination requirement, the court “held that one standard – ‘the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman . . . or chastity in singleness’ (G-6.0106b) – should be elevated above all other standards, so as to permit no consideration of departures. That holding was contrary to our constitution, history and theology as Presbyterians.”
By this action, the rationale argues, the court “violated scriptural and confessional teachings that all fall short of the glory of God, and that to single out one type of person or sin as more egregious than others violates the doctrine of total depravity. Indeed, the serious error in treating ‘fidelity and chastity’ as an ‘essential’ is evident in the very standard itself. In 1996, when it adopted G-6.0106b, the General Assembly departed from our confessional definition of marriage as a relationship between ‘one man and one woman’ (Book of Confessions §§ 6.131, 6.133) and referred instead to ‘a man and a woman,’ in order to reflect our belief today that remarriage after divorce should not bar persons from ordained service. Such recent reform shows the fallacy in declaring the current standard so ‘essential’ that persons who disagree with it are incapable of communion with the church.”
In summation, the rationale argues that, “Freedom of conscience means nothing unless it is respected on issues as to which faithful Presbyterians disagree. In [its ruling], the GAPJC rendered conscience irrelevant precisely where it matters most – where there is genuine disagreement that threatens the unity of the church. This overture would not repeal the standard set forth in the second sentence of G-6.0106b, but would restore it to its proper status as one among many standards – to be faithfully applied in case-by-case assessments of fitness. In doing so, it would restore theological integrity to the way our standards are applied; return us to the sound Presbyterian tradition that has prevented and healed schisms over past centuries [and] respect the efforts of the 217th General Assembly to end thirty years of polarized debate on intractable differences.”
Craig M. Kibler is the Director of Publications and Executive Editor for the Presbyterian Lay Committee. He can be reached at ckibler@www.layman.org.