Presbytery votes yes, no and maybe on ordinations
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, July 26, 2006
The elders and ministers in the Presbytery of Western North Carolina voted yes, no and maybe Tuesday on affirming and upholding the “fidelity/chastity” ordination requirements in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Their votes on four motions paralleled the General Assembly’s response to the recommendations of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity. The national governing body of the denomination voted by a large margin not to seek the repeal of the ordination requirements, but to allow ordaining bodies to grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis.
The first motion considered by the presbytery called for an affirmation of G-6.0106b in the Book of Order, which prohibits sessions and presbyteries from ordaining men or women who are involved in adulterous or homosexual relationships. The presbytery voted overwhelmingly against affirming the requirement.
Later, the presbytery voted by a narrow margin to allow no exemptions to the constitutional requirement when considering candidates for the ministry.
Nonetheless, the presbytery approved a final motion – made by Pete Peery, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Asheville – that left the door open to ordaining candidates who are sexually active outside of marriage. By approving Peery’s motion, the presbytery decided it would grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis by the vote of the presbytery.
A fourth motion on the issue was considered and overwhelmingly defeated. It was a proposal that the presbytery approve the theological declaration of a new organization known as Constitutional Presbyterians.
That declaration is a point-by-point, Barmen-like statement of orthodox beliefs and refutations of departures from those beliefs. While repeatedly saying that they will remain within the PCUSA, the Constitutional Presbyterians conclude their theological declaration with the following:
- We recognize and acknowledge no denominational agency, official, or policy that would dismiss, usurp, or undermine the discipline and oversight of duly elected elders acting in accordance with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), and we reject the authority of any that would defy, circumvent, or ignore this Constitution or any part of it that has been ratified by a majority of presbyteries, insofar as it is in accord with our final authority, Holy Scripture.
In a commentary on the objectives of the Constitutional Presbyterians, one of its leaders writes: “We will not leave our denomination. But we may well claim its constitution so strongly and obey it so vigorously that the denomination will come to a time of division. May God grant that it should not come to that. But we will not break faith merely to avoid it.”