Complaints target resolutions of presbyteries that voted to abide by ordination standards
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, November 16, 2006
Two synods have been asked to order that presbyteries in their jurisdictions rescind resolutions stating that they would not consider ordaining men and women whose behavior did not conform to the “fidelity/chastity” requirements of the Book of Order.
Related story:
Third presbytery targeted, tooThe remedial complaints were filed with the Permanent Judicial Commissions of the Synod of Alaska-Northwest against Olympia Presbytery and the Synod of the Pacific against Sacramento Presbytery.
The Alaska-Northwest complaint targets a resolution that Olympia Presbytery approved on Sept. 21. The resolution said, “We hereby declare that in our discernment of the movement of the Holy Spirit, every mandate of the Book of Order is an essential of reformed polity. Therefore, any violation of a mandate of the Book of Order constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed polity and thus presents a bar to ordination or installation.”
The complaint asked the synod’s Permanent Judicial Commission to:
- “Stay implementation of Olympia Presbytery’s Resolution of September 21, 2006 pending completion of this litigation. A separate Request for Stay of Enforcement, and proposed Stay of Enforcement, accompany this Complaint;”
- “Order Olympia Presbytery to rescind its Resolution of September 21, 2006, and to make its assessments of fitness for ordained service in compliance with Book of Order G-6.0108, as authoritatively interpreted by the 217th General Assembly;”
- “Instruct Olympia Presbytery, as urged by the 217th General Assembly, to undertake structured processes of community building and collective discernment regarding its privileges and obligations as part of the Christian community known as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.);”
- “Order the Stated Clerk of Olympia Presbytery to report this Commission’s Decision and Order to the Presbytery at its first meeting after receipt, to enter the full Decision and Order upon its minutes, and to send an excerpt of those minutes showing entry of the Decision and Order to the Stated Clerk of the Synod of Alaska-Northwest;”
- “Order such further action to ensure full and effective compliance with the Constitution, in matters at issue in this Complaint, as this commission deems appropriate.”
Rick Melin, the stated clerk of the Synod of Alaska-Northwest, said about 10 members of the presbytery signed the complaint and that the presbytery was meeting today to consider its response, including appointing a committee of counsel to defend the presbytery in a synod trial. He said he did not have the complaint immediately available to identify the signers.
Melin added that it was his “gut feeling” that the case would not end in a trial before the synod’s Permanent Judicial Commission, and that the issue would eventually have to be decided by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission.
The Layman Online was unable to reach Joy Mills, the stated clerk of the Synod of the Pacific, about the details of the complaint against the Sacramento resolution.
The Sacramento presbytery voted in September to follow strictly the ordination requirements in G-6.0106b, the constitutional fidelity/chastity clause. But its commissioners approved a four-part resolution that included sections dealing with paying per-capita apportionments and congregations that may leave the denomination and take their property.
The full Sacramento resolution:
- 1. “To promote the peace, unity, and purity of our presbytery, we resolve that the Sacramento Presbytery holds that all candidates for ordination, installation, and/or membership in this Presbytery shall comply with all standards for ordination set forth in the Constitution of the (PCUSA) (G-1.0500), or shall be ineligible for ordination, installation, and/or membership” (approved 87-59-1).
- 2. “To promote the peace, unity, and purity of our presbytery, we resolve that the Sacramento Presbytery shall not receive into membership, nor recognize as a member, anyone who has been ordained or installed under a scruple (that is taking exception to any of the ordination standards as set forth in the Constitution of the (PCUSA) (G-1.0500))” (approved 82-63-2).
- 3. “To promote the peace, unity, and purity of our presbytery, we resolve that the Sacramento Presbytery shall honor the protest of every congregation that chooses to exercise its right to withhold its per capita, therefore, only designated congregational per capita funds shall be used to fulfill presbytery per capita obligations, and presbytery per capita assessments shall not be increased to compensate for such protests (approved 73-66-6).”
- 4. “To promote the peace, unity, and purity of our presbytery, we resolve that the Sacramento Presbytery shall take no action to enforce any general trust interest claimed against any property, real or personal, held by an individual congregation within the Sacramento Presbytery” (approved 73-65-2).
General Assembly Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick has raised strong opposition to resolutions like those adopted by Olympia and Sacramento. In a Sept. 8 letter to the stated clerks, Kirkpatrick called such resolutions “of particular concern to me” and declared that the resolutions were violations of the 2006 General Assembly’s authoritative interpretation that undermined the ordination standards.
That authoritative interpretation did not call for repeal of G-6.0106b, but instead said ordaining bodies must decide on their own whether the “fidelity/chastity” ordination requirement is an essential. According to the Book of Order’s definitions of what constitutes a mandate, G-6.0106b is in that category. But the authoritative interpretation, focusing on G-6.0108, the “conscience” clause, said the judgment of ordaining bodies cannot be bound by any rule that they deem nonessential.
Kirkpatrick’s letter to the denomination’s 173 presbyteries included these comments:
- “Examinations are to be conducted based on constitutional standards established by the whole church, but ordination and installation decisions are to be made by ordaining bodies based on whether ‘the candidate has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity’ (G-6.0108b). Authoritative interpretations can be changed by new interpretations from the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission or the assembly itself, and presbyteries may send in overtures seeking such change, but presbyteries cannot set aside, on their own, standards clearly specified in an already adopted authoritative interpretation.”
- “Establishing answers that are required of candidates for installation and ordination, or determining in advance answers that will be unacceptable. Ordaining bodies may determine questions they wish to ask of candidates, but their answers are to be judged on a case-by-case basis, based on the standards set by the Constitution.”
- “Proposals to grant congregations – based on a super majority vote or other criteria – to leave the denomination with their property in the event of schism. The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission case, Strong and Bagby v. Synod of the Mid-South, makes it very clear that presbyteries are the body of original decision-making in all matters related to dismissing, dissolving, or transferring congregations and cannot delegate that authority to a session or congregation. This is to be done on a case-by-case basis, based on the criteria in G-8 and especially the standard that any such action should be for the benefit of the mission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
- “Actions to restrict presbyteries from fulfilling their G-9.0404d responsibilities to transmit their per-capita assessments to synods and General Assembly. The authoritative interpretation by the 211th General Assembly (1999) of G-9.0404d made it clear that the payment of per capita to higher governing bodies is a presbytery responsibility ‘as long as it has funds available,’ and cannot be contravened because certain sessions wish to have funds withheld. Presbyteries do not have the authority to change those provisions without seeking an amendment or new interpretation of the Constitution.”