Complainants in Los Ranchos ordination dispute appeal to PCUSA’s highest court
The Layman, May 29, 2012
A complaint that could further exacerbate tensions among mid councils in the Presbyterian Church (USA) as they interpret ordination standards in a post Amendment 10A church may be heard by the denomination’s highest judicial body after the complainants filed an appeal to a synod-level decision.
A group of 21 Presbyterians in Southern California filed an appeal to the PCUSA’s General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) on Wednesday, three weeks after the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii Permanent Judicial Commission (SPJC) ruled that a resolution approved by the Presbytery of Los Ranchos in 2011 was constitutional.
At issue is a resolution passed in September by a 125-51 vote, which states that “the Bible, the Book of Confessions and the Book of Order set forth the Scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation.”
The measure also states that ordained ministers should live in “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness and will so notify candidates for ordination/installation and/or membership in the presbytery.”
The resolution came four months after the denomination ratified Amendment 10A, which deleted the explicit “fidelity/chastity” requirement from the constitutional ordination standard.
A complaint was subsequently filed with the synod PJC alleging that such a resolution by the presbytery was unconstitutional. In its May 4 decision, the SPJC rejected the complaints of error by a 6-2 vote but also admonished Los Ranchos, claiming that the resolution caused potential harm to the peace and unity of the denomination.
The decision also dissolved a stay of enforcement and stated that the presbytery “may proceed as it sees fit to communicate its resolution to current and future teaching elder members.”
The synod decision stated that the complaint rested on the question of “whether a presbytery has the right to pass a resolution concerning the manner of life for its teaching elders as part of the proper exercise of the presbytery’s authority within the powers reserved to presbyteries.”
The SPJC said the presbytery did have that right but that “while this PJC considers the resolution constitutional, the use of specific language known to be divisive and inflammatory flies in the face of the responsibility to seek the peace, unity and purity of the church.”
The resolution states that Los Ranchos “will prayerfully and pastorally examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation and suitability for the responsibilities of office, including a commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions of ordination and installation.”
In its appeal, the complainants claim the SPJC “failed to address the fundamental issues raised in the complaint – including allegations that the presbytery attempted to define, diminish, augment or modify standards for ordained service and that it defined ‘essentials’ for ordained service in advance of its examination of individual candidates.”
In addition to eight other specifications of error, the appeal also alleges that the SPJC erred in “holding that the recent amendment of the Book of Order [Amendment 10A] renders prior judicial decisions merely ‘informative’ or ‘guidance’ rather than binding church law.”
The appeal would likely not be heard until after the 220th General Assembly meeting in Pittsburgh, June 30-July 8. The assembly has before it several overtures regarding ordination standards, action upon which may render the case being made moot.
Overture 07-08 would explicitly allow sessions and presbyteries to do what Los Ranchos has done, articulating the theological and behavior standards expected of its members. Items 07-09 and 07-13 would expressly forbid such resolutions and or policies. Many such resolutions and policies were passed by sessions and presbyteries following the passage of Amendment 10A.
“The Presbytery of Los Ranchos is trying to walk a very fine polity line here and in the opinion of the majority of the SPJC they have successfully done so,” blogger Steve Salyards noted in a recent post.
“The decision I expected from this case was much, much closer to the dissenting opinion,” he added. “I have to think that the verbatim inclusion of now-removed language from the Book of Order is a problem … If appealed to the GAPJC I would think this decision has a high likelihood of being overturned.”