2 pro-gay ordination groups tread gently on PUP report
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, September 8, 2005
Unlike their allies, some of the groups committed to repealing the denomination’s constitutional “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard are responding gently to the final report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity.
The Witherspoon Society and Covenant Network of Presbyterians have both posted moderate statements about the task force’s recommendations on their Web sites – including some kudos and some soft-spoken disagreement.
The Covenant Network has often declared that it represents the center of the Presbyterian Church (USA) – even though the majority of Presbyterians support the denomination’s constitutional prohibition against ordaining practicing homosexuals.
In a statement issued by its executive committee, the Covenant Network appealed to that centrism. “For the first time in decades, a group with the topic of sexuality in its mandate has reached unanimity in its recommendations, with no minority report,” the group said. “In light of the fact that Task Force members were chosen for the strength and diversity of their views, that is an extraordinary agreement and perhaps a sign of God’s guidance.”
“Our first response to the Task Force is gratitude for their careful work and for their shared dedication to the church,” the group added. “We believe that the report is theologically sound, solidly Reformed, and faithfully wrought. The work of four years, by twenty deeply committed Presbyterians, cannot fairly be reduced overnight to easy sound bites or partisan rebuttals. In our view, it requires study, prayer, conversation, and ongoing discernment, especially with those who disagree with us about ends and means.”
But the Covenant Network expressed its reservations. “[W]e note sadly that the final recommendations do not address all of our hopes for the church – in particular, for its gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender members … However, the Covenant Network continues to hold a vision of the church as generous and just as God’s grace and remains committed to changing ordination standards we believe to be a departure from Presbyterian tradition and Jesus’ own teaching and practice.”
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.
“This is not ‘local option,’ a term coined by the right wing in 1996 to demonize the position on LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] ordination with which they disagreed,” Smith said. “It is an affirmation of the foundational role of presbyteries and sessions in the ordination process.”
Nonetheless, the idea of allowing presbyteries to ordain practicing homosexuals – which is already being done by dozens of presbyteries and sessions – bypasses another “foundational role” of the presbyteries. They approved an amendment to insert the “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard in the PCUSA constitution in 1996 and have twice since affirmed it by increasing margins, including 73 percent in 2001.
Smith did have one “major disappointment.” He said, “The report is not neutral on the ordination of LGBT persons, although I suspect that the TTF thinks it is. Any report that calls for the defeat at the 2006 GA of overtures that have already been passed by presbyteries, calling for the removal of G-6.0106b and its supporting authoritative interpretations, is not neutral. This ‘strong encouragement’ shows not only a lack of neutrality but also a lack of trust in their own recommendations.”
He added, “With the report’s only really substantive recommendation undercut by the strong encouragement for a legislative hiatus, the TTF recommendations end up sounding, despite their elegant language, like a broken record that we’ve heard before and one that has been very hurtful to LGBT persons.”
Gene TeSelle, the Witherspoon Society’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.”
He expressed concern that the task force’s “recommendations would increase the pressure on the person seeking ordination, since the procedure would inevitably be ‘case-by-case.’ The examining body is urged to gain ‘the broadest vision of each officer-elect’s faith, manner of life, and promise’ – presumably trying to be comprehensive and balanced during the examining process. But comprehensiveness increases the pressure as the examining body tries to judge ‘whether these actual, fallible human beings have the self-awareness, commitment, and capacity to exercise faithful ministry.’ As if to balance concerns like these, the report reminds us several times that the ordination standards are ‘ideals’ and that no officer-elect will be ‘perfect’ in satisfying them.”
TeSelle suggested that there “are very few who would call this [G-6.0106b] central, essential or necessary. If a governing body, in examining a candidate, finds that person to be suitable, then it has authority under G-6.0108 to make the judgment that his or her ordination is not prohibited. In sum, an AI binds how the examining body shall interpret a standard, but it cannot override that body’s power to judge which matters are essential and whether a departure is a serious obstacle.”
“It is conceivable that some governing bodies might regard conformity to an exclusivist interpretation of G-6.0106b as an ‘essential’ of faith and practice; certainly that is what the Presbytery of San Diego and the Confessing Church and New Wineskin movements seem to be telling us,” TeSelle said.
But even Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick came close to calling the “fidelity/chastity” clause essential in a Febuary 2002 letter. He described G-6.0106b as “the ‘law of the church” and said “no session or presbytery has the right to ordain anyone who is unwilling to live” by the standard.
TeSelle said “the bitterest medicine” in the report was the task force’s call for a moratorium on trying to repeal G-6.0106b and the current Authoritative Interpretation that says practicing homosexuals should not be ordained.
“Those of us who have been advocating removal of G-6.0106b will inevitably be disappointed, regarding this as a temporizing move at best. While the TTF has affirmed our tradition of interpreting the ‘essentials’ in a way that permits diversity, it has not gone far enough. It has decided to be ambivalent about the sexuality issue,” he said.
“Matters might even turn out to be worse than that. Presbyterians for Renewal is already encouraging presbyteries to send overtures that call for G-6.0106b to be amended to say that it cannot be reconsidered before the year 2018,” TeSelle added. “A move like that is contrary to the spirit of the TTF report. But it is one of the things that can happen when we count too much on mutuality and dialogue and overlook the constant opportunities for political maneuvering. Delay may not be productive.”