Presbytery’s overture calls for changes in PUP proposals
The Layman Online, December 12, 2005
The Presbytery of Mississippi has approved an overture to the 217th General Assembly that would significantly revise the recommendations of the denomination’s Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity.
The overture calls for reassertion that the denomination’s constitutional prohibition against ordaining practicing homosexuals would remain a requirement for sessions and presbyteries, the ordaining bodies in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
It also opposes the task force’s recommendation that calls for replacing parliamentary procedure, using Roberts Rules of Order, with a discernment model for reaching decisions by consensus.
The overture suggests rewording two sections of the task force’s report: Recommendation No. 4 and Recommendation No. 5.
Recommendation No. 4 would be changed by omitting (striking through) some words as follows:
The Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church recommends that the 217th General Assembly (2006) direct the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly, and urge those who plan and moderate meetings of other governing bodies, to explore the use of alternative forms of discernment and decision-making as a complement to parliamentary procedure, especially in dealing with potentially divisive issues.
The overture says “it is not necessary or proper for the Presbyterian Church to jettison the time-honored procedures of Roberts’ Rules of Order.” In fact, the overture says, quoting G-9.0302 in the Book of Order, “Meetings of governing bodies, commissions, and committees shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, except in those cases where this Constitution provides otherwise.”
In recommendation No. 5, the task force called on the General Assembly to allow ordaining bodies to decide on their own what, if any, constitutional requirements are essential for considering candidates for office – in other words, local option that would allow them to ignore the ban on ordaining practicing homosexuals.
The overture would limit that discretion by including a phrase (italicized) in section c of recommendation No. 5: “Subject to the requirements of the Book of Order, ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards to those elected to office.”
The Mississippi Presbytery said the task force “failed to mention that the Constitution also places limits on sessions’ and presbyteries’ powers of ordination. There are many places in the Book of Order where certain requirements are placed on who ‘shall’ or ‘shall not’ be ordained. G-6.0105 says, ‘Both men and women shall be eligible to hold church offices.’ G-14.0201 says, ‘Every congregation shall elect men and women from among its active members….’ These paragraphs limit the freedom of sessions to exclude either men or women from the office of ruling elder.”
The overture adds, “The requirement that presbyteries observe constitutional limits on their powers of ordination was upheld by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission in Londonderry v. the Presbytery of Northern New England. The PJC said, ‘there are no constitutional grounds for a governing body to fail to comply with an express provision of the Constitution. … 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.'”
The overture also calls for changes in the task force’s recommendations 5c(2), 5c(3) and 5d to prohibit the ordination of candidates who depart from constitutional and Biblical requirements for belief and conduct and to ensure that the ordaining body’s decision “accords with Biblical standards and the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).” is are subject to review by higher governing bodies.”
The full text of the overture is:
The Presbytery of Mississippi overtures the 217th General Assembly to do the following:
1. Receive the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity with thanks.
2. Adopt Recommendations 1 through 3, 6 and 7 without amendment.
Rationale
It is obvious to anyone who has interacted with the written and audio-visual resources produced by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity (hereafter TTFOPUP) that this group of Presbyterians has taken their job very seriously. It is encouraging to see Presbyterians who have such different theological and hermeneutical points of view nevertheless coming together to affirm their common faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and their common allegiance to the Holy Scriptures. Simply by meeting together over such an extended period of time, the TTFOPUP gives the Presbyterian Church much hope for the future. It is possible for us to learn to live together.
3. Amend Recommendation 4, omitting the words indicated as follows:
The Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church recommends that the 217th General Assembly (2006) direct the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly, and urge those who plan and moderate meetings of other governing bodies, to explore the use of alternative forms of discernment and decision-making as a complement to parliamentary procedure, especially in dealing with potentially divisive issues.
Rationale In learning to live together, it is not necessary or proper for the Presbyterian Church to jettison the time-honored procedures of Roberts’ Rules of Order, as the TTFOPUP’s fourth recommendation suggests. The Book of Order is quite clear that “Meetings of governing bodies, commissions, and committees shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, except in those cases where this Constitution provides otherwise” (G-9.0302). Marianne Wolfe explains the reason for abiding by this Constitutional mandate in “Parliamentary Procedures in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.):”
Recent moves to adopt consensus decision-making are antithetical to this principle [of majority rule] and also to the basic rights of the individual as listed above and should never be used except in the most routine of parliamentary transactions. At its worst, consensus decision-making is manipulative and overpowering to the rights of the minority because it compels the minority to “break the unity of the body” in order to disagree. Most church members will choose to suppress their disagreement rather than risk this, and, if forced into this dilemma very often, will begin to harbor resentment toward the body. This latter is far more destructive to unity than open disagreement and the freedom of the right to disagree (pp. 4-5).
The amendment preserves the TTFOPUP’s hearty endorsement of alternative forms of discernment, while not suggesting that the General Assembly must follow its example.
4. Amend Recommendation 5c by adding the words in italics: “Subject to the requirements of the Book of Order, ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards to those elected to office. These determinations include:”
RationaleIt is most encouraging that the TTFOPUP has held up the presbyteries as the essential and fundamental units of government in our denomination. Presbyteries indeed antedate the General Assembly, and presbyteries have fundamental rights, especially where it comes to examining and accepting their own members. The Book of Order is quite clear when it says that presbyteries have the responsibility and power “to ordain, receive, dismiss, install, remove, and discipline ministers” (G-11.0103n).
But the TTFOPUP has failed to mention that the Constitution also places limits on sessions’ and presbyteries’ powers of ordination. There are many places in the Book of Order where certain requirements are placed on who “shall” or “shall not” be ordained. G-6.0105 says, “Both men and women shall be eligible to hold church offices.” G-14.0201 says, “Every congregation shall elect men and women from among its active members….” These paragraphs limit the freedom of sessions to exclude either men or women from the office of ruling elder.
Similarly, presbyteries are not allowed to ordain candidates for the office of Minister of the Word and Sacrament unless those men and women are properly qualified. G-14.0310b says, “The candidate’s presbytery shall require a candidate to fulfill the following requirements to be certified as to be ready for examination for ordination, pending a call.” The Book of Order goes on to limit the presbyteries in their ability to ordain candidates who do not possess college transcripts, seminary educations, or satisfactory grades on the Ordination Examinations. These necessary qualifications can only be set aside with supermajority votes of presbytery (G-14.0313).
The requirement that presbyteries observe constitutional limits on their powers of ordination was upheld by the GAPJC in Londonderry v. the Presbytery of Northern New England. The PJC said, “there are no constitutional grounds for a governing body to fail to comply with an express provision of the Constitution. … 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.”
The suggested amendment restores the balance between governing bodies’ freedom to ordain and those governing bodies’ obligation to exercise their powers according to the limitations expressed in the Book of Order. If the presbyteries indeed desired to remove some or all of the limitations placed on their powers of ordination, the appropriate way to do that would be through the Book of Order‘s amendment process.
5. Amend Recommendation 5c(2) by adding the words in italics: Whether any departure of belief constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation.
6. Amend Recommendation 5c by adding section 5c(3): “Whether any conduct bars the candidate from ordination and/or installation. Such disqualifying conduct would include any failure on the part of a candidate to be governed by the church’s polity and abide by its discipline.”
RationaleThe TTFOPUP has rightly pointed to the historic tension in Presbyterian polity between the need for adherence to necessary beliefs and practices on the one hand and the freedom of conscience for all members of presbytery on the other. It is true that our Presbyterian family has always been marked by diversity, and that since the Adopting Act of 1729, we have always allowed some differences of opinion to exist.
The TTFOPUP is also right to point out that G-6.0108 is of fundamental importance to the question of who should be ordained. It is true that individual candidates for ordination have always had the freedom to declare their disagreement with the Confessions or with the Book of Order. It is also true that presbyteries have wide latitude in determining which scruples declared by candidates are acceptable and which scruples would make candidates ineligible for ordination.
However, the TTFOPUP report does not make clear the distinction between a candidate’s beliefs and his or her conduct. For while it is undoubtedly the case that “God alone is Lord of the conscience” (Book of Confessions 6.109), it is also the case that an officer of the Presbyterian Church “chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds” (G-6.0108b). That is why the constitutional questions propounded to ordinands include: “Will you be governed by our church’s polity, and will you abide by its discipline?” Diversity of opinion is a precious freedom, but the unity of the Presbyterian Church is impossible without its officers’ obedience to constitutional standards.
This understanding of Presbyterian polity was recognized by the UPC in 1975 in Maxwell v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh. The case involved a minister who refused to participate in the ordination of women as elders. The PJC said, “Neither a synod nor the General Assembly has any power to allow a presbytery to grant an exception to an explicit constitutional provision.” In other words, the minister was free to believe what he wished, but his practice had to be governed by the Constitution.
The suggested amendments thus recognize the necessary distinction between a candidate’s freedom of conscience and his obligation to govern his conduct according to the Constitution of the Church.
7. Amend Recommendation 5d by adding the words in italics: “Whether the ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a candidate for church office, and whether the result reached accords with Biblical standards and the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church(U.S.A.) is are subject to review by higher governing bodies.”
Rationale The problem with 5d as presented by the TTFOPUP is that it is exclusively subjective. It would be possible for a Presbytery to be reasonable, responsible, prayerful, and deliberate even while ordaining someone who was nevertheless ineligible for office according to the standards of the Constitution. Objective measures, such as whether the examination was conducted “Constitutionally,” or “Biblically,” are nowhere to be found in section 5d of the report. A higher governing body could thus find itself prevented from overturning an unconstitutional ordination, as long as the examination was carried out with all due decorum.
The suggested amendment would explicitly allow appropriate objective measures to be used by higher governing bodies to insure that the Constitution is faithfully followed by all governing bodies of the Church.