In two columns, three former GAPJC members say PUP’s recommendation 5 is flawed
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, May 17, 2006
Three former members of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission – the highest court in the Presbyterian Church (USA) – have reached the conclusion that recommendation 5 in the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity is flawed.
The three come from both sides of the aisle in the ongoing debate over the constitutional requirement that prohibits presbyteries and sessions from ordaining homosexuals as church officers.
Daniel M. Saperstein, the executive director of the Presbytery of Plains and Peaks in Colorado and Nebraska, says he does not believe the denomination’s constitutional ordination requirements should apply to all practicing homosexuals.
James Quillen, the pastor of Highland Heights Presbyterian Church in Cordova, Tenn., and David Bridgman, associate director of Presbyterian Frontier Fellowship, support the requirements.
Saperstein writes about “Recommendation Five’s fatal flaw” in a column posted on the Presbyterian Outlook Forum on May 15.
Quillen and Bridgman, each of whom served six years on the GAPJC in terms that overlapped Saperstein’s, expressed their opposition to the task force’s proposed authoritative interpretation in a column titled “Former GAPJC members: Adoption of PUP proposal would cause a ‘tectonic shift‘” that appeared in the April issue of The Layman.
In his column, Saperstein does not support the constitutional prohibition against ordaining practicing homosexuals and adulterers – G-6.0106b in the Book of Order – but he says recommendation 5 “unravels the threads that hold together the fabric of constitutional unity.”
Quillen and Bridgeman concluded in their column that General Assembly approval of recommendation 5 “will devastate the peace and unity of the PCUSA.”
Both columns focus in on the task force’s recommendation that ordaining bodies be given the option of deciding on their own whether G-6.0106b is an “essential” requirement. But, as long as it is in the Book of Order, it is essential, the three former GAPJC members say, and no governing body, including the General Assembly, has the authority to give ordaining bodies latitude to defy it.
Both columns cite a July 2000 ruling in Londonderry Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Northern New England, in which the GAPJC said, “A formal declaration by a governing body whose members have taken the vow [to] be governed by our church’s polity, and abide by its discipline, not to comply with the express corporate judgment of the Church in an explicit constitutional provision exceeds the constitutional bounds of freedom of conscience and therefore requires a response on the part of the governing body exercising oversight.”
In its rationale for recommendation 5, the task force proposes that candidates for ordination be allowed to declare “scruples” if they disagree with the prohibition against ordaining homosexuals. Task force members have also argued that G-6.0106b is not an “essential” because the Presbyterian Church (USA) has declared that there are no essentials.
But Saperstein argues that the scrupling was abandoned when it “came under fire during conflicts over the ordination of women (by the left) and homosexuals (by the right). With the adoption of G-6.0106b in 1997, specific restrictions on the right of ordaining bodies to assert independent judgment concerning the application of ordination standards were written into the Constitution.”
Furthermore, he wrote, “There is a fundamental distinction, however, between an individual’s scruple of conscience concerning the rightness of our polity (as a matter of belief) and a governing body’s determination that the polity is not binding (as a matter of practice).”
Quillen and Bridgman also expressed concern about the reinstitution of scrupling. They said that could lead to even more ecclesiastical trials “since the mere request for a scruple on a constitutionally prohibited practice is effectively a public confession of that sin, [and] an accusation against that individual would warrant investigation and prosecution.”
Saperstein said the task force’s proposed authoritative interpretation needs refinement. He suggested possible amendments to recommendation 5, including clarification that “governing bodies exercise judgment within the parameters of the powers granted to them by the Constitution, and may not violate explicit provisions limiting those powers, such as are found in G-6.0106b.”
He also suggested the General Assembly could call for a referendum, giving presbyteries a chance to repeal G-6.0106b. Nearly two dozen presbyteries have overtured the 217th General Assembly to do just that.
Quillen and Bridgman did not suggest any alternatives to the task force’s proposed authoritative interpretation.