Clerk, moderator say overture will do the job
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, February 7, 2003
In defense of their decision to scuttle a special meeting the 214th General Assembly, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick and Moderator Fahed Abu-Akel are commending an overture from the Presbytery of Redstone in Pennsylvania.
The clerk and the moderator, in their pastoral letter to 11,142 congregations in the Presbyterian Church (USA), say the Redstone overture “ensures that the basic concerns in the petition will be before the 215th General Assembly in Denver.”
In fact, though, Redstone does not deal authoritatively with those issues and does not call on the General Assembly to bring any real pressure on lower governing bodies to ensure compliance with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
The overture calls for constitutional compliance and forbearance and calls on synods to do the job of enforcement.
Redstone’s strongest language is to “urge” – not compel – “synods to adopt guidelines or amend their standing rules to provide for appointment of committees to address such issues.”
Like some of Kirkpatrick’s directives to lower-governing bodies, the sympathies of the Redstone overture seem to lie in the left-middle of the debate. It calls for “guidelines” and “support” for synods as they deal with:
- “The frustration of presbyteries who find themselves unwilling/unable to comply with the terms of G-6.0106b,
- “The frustration of presbyteries dealing with sessions within their bounds who are unwilling/unable to comply with the terms of G-6.0106b,
- “The frustration of those angered by the perceived failure of presbyteries and synods to adequately address such defiance within their bounds.”
By declaring that some presbyteries and sessions are “unwilling/unable” to comply with the church’s constitutional ordination standard, the Redstone Presbytery seems to be suggesting that they have that right. It does not state unequivocably that defiance is unacceptable.
And, in its rationale, Redstone says, “For a large minority of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) such a provision [the ordination standard] is deemed unconstitutional.” But the fact remains that the standard is constitutional.
The denomination’s historic prohibition against ordaining practicing homosexuals was embedded in the constitution in 1997 after being ratified by the presbyteries. The standard was affirmed by two subsequent referendums – by a 3-2 margin in 1998 and by a 3-1 margin in 2000.
That essence of the Redstone overture is what Kirkpatrick has been saying all along – that it is not his duty or the duty of the General Assembly to enforce the constitution.
But the petition to call the special meeting of the General Assembly contended that the national governing body did have the right to monitor – and require – constitutional enforcement.
The petition was specific, calling on the General Assembly to:
1. Continue oversight of the GAPJC decision in Londonderry vs Presbytery of Northern New England in order to effect compliance with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
2. Respond to the growing defiance of, delinquency, and enforcement of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) by officers, agencies and governing bodies with respect to G-6.0106(b) and the GAPJC decision on holy unions (Benton vs Hudson River Presbytery.)
3. Exercise all necessary powers authorized to the General Assembly under the Constitution to propose and adopt directives to officers, agencies, and Governing bodies in order to deal with all matters relating to the issues detailed in items # 1 & 2 above.
Thus, the petition was action-oriented, employing six verbs – continue, respond, exercise, propose, adopt and deal with. Redstone limits the assembly’s overview to the “clear authority to call upon the synods to take actions to address this sad state of affairs.”
The full text of Redstone Presbytery’s overture:
The Presbytery of Redstone respectfully overtures the 215th General Assembly (2003) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to:
1. remind all synods of their responsibility for oversight of their presbyteries (including the presbytery’s oversight of its sessions) G-12.0102
2. issue guidance and support to synods as they deal with:
- the frustration of presbyteries who find themselves unwilling/unable to comply with the terms of G-6.0106b,
- the frustration of presbyteries dealing with sessions within their bounds who are unwilling/unable to comply with the terms of G-6.0106b,
- the frustration of those angered by the perceived failure of presbyteries and synods to adequately address such defiance within their bounds;
3. urge synods to adopt guidelines or amend their standing rules to provide for appointment of committees to address such issues.
Rationale:
1. Since 1996, when G-6.0106b was added to our Constitution, there has been great tension inside our beloved denomination. For a large minority of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) such a provision is deemed unconstitutional. For the majority, the Scriptures and Confessions are so clear that the minority’s perspective is beyond comprehension.
2. In these six years, innumerable cases of judicial process have been initiated. First came remedial cases such as Wier v. Second Presbyterian Church (1999, p. 831) and Londonderry v. Presbytery of Northern New England (2001, p. 577). More recently, one elder has filed disciplinary complaints against more than 20 individuals.
3. Immediately prior to the convening of the 214th General Assembly, the session of Christ Church in Burlington, VT withdrew the statement that gave rise to the Londonderry complaint. Following the adjournment of the 214th General Assembly, the same session issued a new statement again expressing defiance.
4. The Presbyteries of Baltimore and Redwoods appear to have failed to adequately carry out their responsibilities in the face of credible allegations against their members.
5. The Presbytery of Cincinnati continues to seem unable to adequately carry out its responsibilities for Mt. Auburn’s session and pastors.
6. Sessions around the denomination continue to call upon the Stated Clerk, Clifton Kirkpatrick, to take actions that are beyond his authority. Such calls are often publicly made and exhibit little forbearance, as required by Constitution.
7. The press continues to fan the flames of discontent with inaccurate and inflammatory reporting.
8. The synods stand in a position of unique opportunity and responsibility for addressing these situations.
9. The General Assembly possesses clear authority to call upon the synods to take actions to address this sad state of affairs.