Defiant Vt. session dodges another disciplinary bullet
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, March 11, 2003
The session of Christ Church in Burlington, Vt., has issued a revised statement about its ordination policy and won another reprieve from any sort of discipline that might require it to back off its lingering defiance of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
In one of a number of actions that date back to 1997, the leaders of the 80-member congregation dodged another disciplinary bullet in a report to the Presbytery of Northern New England on March 8 and in the presbytery’s approval of that report by a voice vote.
“It is our opinion that the statement [by Christ Church Presbyterian] does not defy or violate the Constitution,” the presbytery’s Pastoral Committee reported.
In addition to accepting the report, the presbytery agreed to forward it to the stated clerk of the General Assembly as the final report on the presbytery’s compliance with an order by the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly.
Modified March 2 at the insistence of the Pastoral Committee, the latest statement by the session of Christ Church says the elders still believe that homosexual practice is neither sinful nor a barrier to ordination as an elder or deacon.
One observer said the new statement satisfied the Presbytery Committee and also put the presbytery on alert in case Christ Church does ordain a self-acknowledged, practicing homosexual.
On July 7, 2000, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly declared, in response to a 1997 statement by Christ Church, “that there are no constitutional grounds for a governing body to fail to comply with an express provision of the Constitution, however inartfully stated. Assertions of inconsistency, confusion, or ambiguity may justify the right to protest. They do not create a right to disregard any part of the Constitution. Furthermore, no court in our denomination has the authority to amend the Constitution or to invalidate any part of it. This is exclusively a legislative process (G-18.0300).”
Clifton Kirkpatrick, the stated clerk of the PCUSA, was required to present the court’s order to the 2001 General Assembly, but he failed to do so. With media attention focused on Christ Church’s unrestrained defiance, Kirkpatrick did report the case to the 214th General Assembly in 2002.
Also in 2002, the Presbytery of Shenango in Pennsylvania submitted an overture calling for the General Assembly itself to exercise oversight and bring Christ Church into compliance, but commissioners rejected that proposal after Christ Church “set aside” its statement of defiance a few weeks before the General Assembly convened.
Opponents of the Shenango overture argued that the constitutional process should be allowed to go forward without the intervention of the denomination’s national governing body.
On Nov. 11, 2002, Christ Church adopted its latest statement – a clear expression of its intent to ordain men and women who are sexually active outside of marriage. That action was one of the reasons that Alex F. Metherell, a commissioner from Laguna Beach, Calif., instigated a petition to require Moderator Fahed Abu-Akel to call the 214th General Assembly back into session to deal with constitutional defiance.
Abu-Akel and Kirkpatrick torpedoed the petition. A trial is scheduled in Kansas City March 17 before the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission to determine whether their actions were constitutionally appropriate.
In essence, the report by the presbytery’s Pastoral Committee said Christ Church – which has aggressively opposed and defied the PCUSA’s “fidelity/chastity” constitutional clause (G-6.0106b) – has produced a rationale for “complying” with church law by reinterpreting key words, such as “chastity.”
In its latest official statement, Christ Church said, “Chastity does not necessarily mean celibacy” for homosexual couples. Before the Pastoral Committee intervened, the session has declared simply that “Chastity does not mean celibacy.”
Other excerpts from the March 2 statement are verbatim from the November statement or slightly amended to make them statements of opinion rather than fact. (The underline portions indicated amendments to the November statement.)
- “Does the Bible clearly condemn homosexuality and loving homosexual relationships? We believe that it does not. And our right of scriptural interpretation is protected by Paragraphs G-1.0301 and G-6.0108 of the Book of Order.”
- “Other possible interpretations of the word ‘chastity’ include moderation, seriousness, monogamy, modesty and respect. Therefore, we believe that ‘living chastely in singleness’ does not constitute a ban on committed homosexual relationships.”
- “Our Confessions establish that ‘repentance’ is a state of inward conviction about the wrongfulness of one’s acts. Many homosexuals believe that their relationship with a same-sex partner is a gift from God, a good and natural part of God’s creation that can be responsibly acted on. Further, our Confessions state that ‘repentance is a sheer gift of God and not a work of our strength.’ Accordingly, ‘refusing to repent’ should not be assumed from a mere refusal to acquiesce in the views of a narrow majority.
- “[I]ndeed, it is our conviction that loving homosexual relationships are neither more nor less likely to be sinful than loving heterosexual relationships.”
- “We hold high the right of the people to choose their own leaders. We believe in giving full expression to the rich diversity within our membership. We believe in welcoming all who respond in trust and obedience to God’s grace in Jesus Christ. We affirm that all active members are entitled to the privileges of the church, including the right to vote and hold office.”
In its original statement, Christ Church said it would defy the constitutional ordination standard. In their recent statement, the congregation’s leaders said they could now comply with G-6.0106b by reinterpreting the standard in a way that would not prohibit the ordination of self-acknowledged, practicing homosexuals.
“Our error was in leaving the interpretation of G-6.0106b to others, rather than exploring for ourselves what it is that G-6.0106b actually says,” Christ Church said in recent statement.
The presbytery committee concluded that “almost all of the [current] statement falls within the boundaries of Presbyterian Church (USA) Constitution. The statement acknowledges the authority of the Constitution, the courts of the church, the presbytery, and the Pastoral Committee acting on behalf of presbytery. It states that CCP has found that it can comply with G-6.0106b, the provision it earlier said it would not apply.”
The committee called Christ Church’s statement “remarkable for its clarity and care of expression. The Pastoral Committee did, however, identify several sentences that seemed inconsistent with the statement as a whole, in that they did not clearly state that they are expressions of the session’s opinion and beliefs, subject to review. A representative of the Pastoral Committee met with the CCP Session on March 2, 2003. The session agreed to amend the statement to take into account the concerns of the Pastoral Committee.”
The presbytery committee noted that Christ Church’s statement and others like it are “of limited usefulness, because the proper time to interpret and apply any constitutional provision, including G-6.0106b, is when a particular candidate is being examined for office. … It should also be noted that if others differ on how CCP’s session interprets or applies G-6.0106b in a particular case, the Constitution provides both administrative and judicial means to challenge that action.”
An observer said the mention of administrative or judicial means was the presbytery’s way of putting Christ Church on notice that it could not continue to state openly its defiance of church law or to attempt to ordain a practicing homosexual without the presbytery’s intervention.
The committee concluded, “The committee is satisfied that CCP’s statement, as modified, is a thoughtful attempt to state the session’s understanding, perspective and views.”
While Christ Church’s defiance of the constitution is now approaching its sixth year, it is not the most prolonged record of defiance in the denomination. Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati, Ohio, has dodged court orders and administrative procedures challenging its defiance of church ordination standards for 12 years.