Does referendum vote
ensure G-6 enforcement?
By John H. Adams, The Layman , April 27, 2009
The unofficial outcome of the vote by presbyteries to retain G-6.0106b in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) means that the “fidelity/chastity” standard cannot be eliminated until at least 2012.
In the meantime, though, does G-6.0106b still mean what it says: that sessions and presbyteries may not ordain self-affirming, practicing homosexuals (plus adulterers and fornicators)?
There are three answers to that question: yes, no and wait and see.
The yes crowd points to the clear language of G-6.0106b: “Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.” (emphasis ours)
The no crowd points to an authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 by the 2008 General Assembly. … “Section G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).”
The advocates of ordaining people who violate the moral standards of G-6.0106b argue that this AI allows candidates to request a departure from “fidelity/chastity.” Ordaining bodies would decide whether the departure was acceptable.
The 2008 authoritative interpretation was exactly what the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity wanted. The substance of PUP’s argument is that candidates for office should be allowed to “scruple” any ordination requirement because the denomination has not established a list of “essentials.”
The wait and see group sees an unresolved conflict between the 2008 AI and a ruling by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission. On Feb. 11, 2008, the commission declared in Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh that ordaining bodies had the right to interpret standards but that “no lower governing body can constitutionally define, diminish, augment or modify standards for ordination and installation of church officers.” But that decision was rendered before the 2008 General Assembly’s authoritative interpretation. The question now is whether the GAPJC would see the situation in the Bush case differently in light of the General Assembly’s view.
In March, the Synod of the Pacific PJC issued a ruling in a case involving the Presbytery of San Francisco and Lisa Larges, a lesbian activist who has been trying for years to secure ordination as a minister. The presbytery had certified Larges as a candidate.
The synod court ordered the presbytery to rescind its vote favoring Larges’ request. But it did not accept the complainants’ argument that the presbytery had acted unconstitutionally. The synod court also skirted the issue of whether G-6.0106b is an “essential” that must be applied to ordination candidates without giving them the opportunity to object.
Meanwhile, advocates of ordaining gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people will soon pile up overtures for the 2010 General Assembly. The first out of the gate was Northside Presbyterian Church, a congregation in the Presbyterian Church (USA). On April 25, Northgate’s session proposed an amendment that would allow the ordination of openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Presbyterians. The proposed amendment will go to the Presbytery of Detroit, which voted against the “fidelity/chastity” requirements.