Naegeli v. San Francisco Presbytery update
Commentary: What I saw at the
fight … is that there is a fight
By Bruce A. McIntosh, Special to The Layman, October 13, 2009
What I observed as counsel for the complainants in a remedial case currently pending before the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission was a real eye-opener. I saw there is a deep divide within the Presbyterian Church (USA), but one side barely acknowledges that it exists.
Naegeli v. San Francisco Presbytery will be heard by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission on Oct. 30, 2009 in Indianapolis, Ind.
The decision from the GAPJC will be announced by Nov. 2.
For more information on the case, click here.
On one side are the evangelicals (and count me among them) who believe God has declared His standard for sexuality, expressly stated, once and for all, in His holy Word. On the other side are the progressives who feel the Bible is a “living word” that is interpreted by each individual to fit contemporary, personal enlightenment. Oddly many evangelicals barely acknowledge there are sides in the debate over Biblical authority and interpretation.
The remedial case before the Synod of the Pacific Permanent Judicial Commission, Naegeli v. San Francisco Presbytery, which is now pending before the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, makes the point.
A self-proclaimed lesbian ministerial candidate had declared she “would not, could not” abide by G-6.0106b – the mandatory fidelity/chastity ordination requirement. She called it a “mar on the church” and declared a “departure,” claiming the requirement violated her conscience. In January 2008, the San Francisco Presbytery voted that the departure did not disqualify the candidate from ordination.
The vote was challenged because it reached an unconstitutional result, because G-6.0106b is mandatory and cannot be waived.
After a one-day trial in March 2009, the Synod of the Pacific’s PJC issued a tepid unanimous decision that elevates conciliation over clarity and provides little guidance to the presbytery, much less to the denomination.
The commission rescinded the presbytery’s vote, but merely on procedural grounds that neither party raised, on which no evidence was presented, and which is unsupported by church precedent. The commission did admonish the presbytery to “enforce mandatory church-wide ordination standards,” but it failed to identify any. Nowhere does the decision state that G-6.0106b, or any other specific standard, is mandatory.
At issue in part was whether the recommendations from the Theological Task Force Peace, Unity and Purity adopted by the General Assembly in 2006 and the Knox Overture, adopted as an authoritative interpretation by the General Assembly in 2008, permits ordaining bodies to grant exceptions to mandatory standards, such as G-6.0106b. Even as Amendment 08-B was voted down across the country this year, the Knox Overture remains the law of the church, and the progressives believe it means all standards – even mandatory ones – must fall to individual conscience. Speaking last November to a Covenant Network gathering in Minnesota, Doug Nave, who was lead counsel for San Francisco Presbytery in Naegeli, with the Knox Overture in mind, said, “who knows if [Amendment] B will pass or not … it almost doesn’t matter. Whether it happens or not, we have the ability right now to ordain whomever we want. …” Is Nave right?
The commission that decided the Naegeli case contained liberals and several strong evangelicals. Unfortunately, it is apparent from the decision that they chose conciliation over clarity. Naegeli could have resolved the issue for San Francisco Presbytery. The commission could have definitively observed that when the Book of Order says G-6.0106b is a requirement it means that it is required, and that the Knox Overture, a mere authoritative interpretation, could not and did not revise the constitution. But it chose an innocuous response, one that does not create losers – and one that does not provide the clarity the church so badly needs.
The commission simply declined to address the salient issue presented by the case: Does Knox mean G-6.0106b can be waived? We still don’t know.
In the end, despite the huge expenditure of time and treasure, the decision accomplished very little. The presbytery is free to take another vote on the candidate, attending only to the procedural issue raised by the commission. Since the decision does not identify G-6.0106b as a mandatory standard, the presbytery can still ignore it, even while giving lip service to “enforcing mandatory standards.” (In fact, at the next presbytery gathering the San Francisco stated clerk advised that “enforcing mandatory standards” did not necessarily refer to G-6.0106b.) All in all, this was a missed opportunity to stand for what Scripture, not to mention the constitution, patently requires.
It is hoped the GAPJC will not miss its opportunity to decide the case with bold clarity. The church deserves, indeed demands, nothing less.
The presbytery’s defense to Naegeli illustrates another point: The progressives do not value harmony or conciliation, but use them as both a shield and a sword. Nor do they seek to build up the church; they seek to tear it down.
Nave, an attorney who is ubiquitous as counsel arguing for gay ordination in PCUSA judicial cases, argued in Naegeli that all standards, including a requirement like G-6.0106b, must fall to the individual’s conscience. His tactic was to pit Scripture, The Book of Confessions and the constitution against each other, attempting to show how hypocritical and inconsistent the PCUSA is. To say the least, denigrating the foundations of the church seemed a strange approach for someone claiming to love the church.
What was stranger still was that while Nave denigrated the confessions and twisted the inspired words of the Apostle Paul, it appeared that no one on the panel raised an eyebrow. At the end of the trial, the moderator praised the participants for being so careful “in [our] care for the church universal,” reminding us that each of us was there “because of the way we love the church.” Really.
My observation is that many progressives denigrate and tear down. They call conservatives bigots and heterosexual idolaters, accuse us of perpetuating violence against gays and of destroying the peace, unity and purity of the church, and then demand forbearance. Their aim is to wrest control of the denomination from its governing heritage, and do not seem to care that they would destroy it in the process. And yet, we conservatives still seek to appease. Rather than call their effort what it is – heresy, apostasy, antinomianism, Gnosticism, sin! – we accommodate, seeking peace, achieving a pretend unity. And in the process, we silence our witness to the world.
But God calls us to something different. Paul directs us to seek goodness and, far from seeking to accommodate evil, to expose it:
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. … Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephe
sians 5:6-11.
Our side needs to get serious about whom we fear most: Do we fear the opprobrium of our Presbyterian colleagues? Of society? Or do we fear the Living God who commands we seek holiness according to His mandates, as He has plainly revealed them to us in His holy Word?
Make no mistake: the Doug Naves in the church will prevail if our side will not take a courageous, if humble, stand for righteousness. If we fail to speak clearly, boldly proclaiming the truth of the Gospel – including God’s mandates for sexuality (which are for our good, not our harm!) – the grand tradition of ministry and service to God that is the history of Presbyterianism in America will be lost. The PCUSA will become something neither we, nor God, can recognize. But if we would engage in the process, speak the truth whenever an un-Biblical or unorthodox idea seeks attention, and otherwise get in there and do something wise and right at the right time, we can thwart the destructive influences hard at work.
Time is not our friend, though. As we appease unrighteousness, our evangelical and orthodox brothers and sisters are departing for holier pastures, leaving fewer voices to defend truth within the PCUSA. Our own reformation must begin immediately with our bold participation at the next session, presbytery or presbytery committee meeting.
The question is: Will our side acknowledge that a struggle is placed before us? Will we, like Jesus, stand and boldly bear witness to the truth? Or will we continue to make nice and let the church be damned?
Bruce A. McIntosh chairs the Religion and Church Law Group for Shapiro Buchman Provine LLP, a law firm in Walnut Creek, California. He is an elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and a member of Walnut Creek Presbyterian Church. He is lead counsel for the complainants in Naegeli v. San Francisco Presbytery, which will heard before the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission on Oct. 30, 2009. In this post he speaks for himself and not on behalf of the complainants. Information regarding the Naegeli case can be found at www.pcusastandrds.org