Anti-Amendment O documents flawed
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, November 29, 2000
Two documents – a “pastoral” letter by some former moderators of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and a “rationale” statement issued by the Office of the General Assembly – give a flawed understanding of the scope of and need for Amendment 00-O, which proposes a ban on same-sex unions in Presbyterian churches.
The letter says Amendment 00-O would prohibit “the participation of deacons, elders, or ministers in any ceremony or event that pronounces blessing or gives approval of the church or invokes the blessing of God upon any relationship that is inconsistent with God’s intention for all people to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in chastity in singleness.”
But there is a big difference between the claim of the pastoral letter and the text of the amendment. Instead of prohibiting deacons, elders and ministers from “participation” in such services, the amendment says “church officers shall not take part in conducting any ceremony or event that pronounces blessing or gives approval of the church or invokes the blessing of God upon any relationship that is inconsistent with God’s intention.…”
Although the amendment does prohibit the use of church property for such services, it clearly does not forbid church officers from attending such services at locations other than Presbyterian churches. Opponents of Amendment 00-O have claimed that the proposal would reach much further than the text says and literally “micro-manage” the activities of ministers. But the amendment clearly does not say what its opponents, through their “pastoral letter,” claim it says.
Flawed rationale
The “rationale” published by the Office of the General Assembly, whose chief officer is Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, is flawed by a key omission: It makes no mention of the event that prompted the 2000 General Assembly to approve an overture calling for the ban on same-sex unions in the church.
In May 2000, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, the highest court in the denomination, ruled that the Constitution of the PCUSA did not prohibit same-sex unions, as long as they were not described as “marriages” or “holy unions.”
In response to that decision, the General Assembly approved Amendment 00-O. But the Office of the General Assembly’s “rationale” completely ignores the court case and instead quotes from a nonbinding ruling by the Advisory Committee on the Constitution that was issued before the ruling by the Permanent Judicial Commission.
In an e-mail response to questions by The Layman Online, Kirkpatrick said his staff made “a special effort not to provide opinions pro or con but to place in that book precisely the amendment adopted by the assembly and a summary of what was formally before the assembly, which is usually the rationale behind the overture (in this case from San Joaquin) and the advice from the Advisory Committee on the Constitution. In this particular case, the ACC did meet again after the PJC decision and chose not to amend their comment.”
Kirkpatrick added, “The PJC decision was not overlooked. It was printed in the Reports to the General Assembly, referenced in the debate, and mailed to every church in the Journal. I am sure the impact of the PJC decision will be part of the debate in the presbyteries, but we need to remain consistent in the Book of Amendments in summarizing the material formally before the GA from the overture and the advise of the ACC.”
The rationale statement, which is posted on the PCUSA’s web site and will be distributed to every commissioner at presbytery meetings when they vote on Amendment 00-O, concluded that no constitutional change was necessary to prohibit same-sex unions because the Presbyterian constitution clearly prohibited any union other than that between a man and a woman.
The statement quotes from the Advisory Committee’s opinion, that “The confessional standards of the church (The Book of Confessions, 5.251, 7.249) clearly speak to certain relationships outside of marriage as being wrong for Christians.” The statement continued, “As all of its specific points are already covered by other portions of the Constitution, the proposed amendment could be construed as unnecessary.”
Without mentioning or quoting from the Permanent Judicial Commission’s ruling allowing same-sex unions, the rationale leaves the impression that the last word on the issue was the Advisory Committee and that the PCUSA Constitution covers all the bases.
But the court’s ruling takes precedence and makes it necessary to amend the constitution if Presbyterians want to prohibit church officers from conducting same-sex unions.