GAPJC pronounces presbytery resolution
‘unconstitutional, and therefore, void’
By Paula R. Kincaid, The Layman, October 31, 2012
Los Ranchos Presbytery’s resolution
That the Presbytery of Los Ranchos adopt the following statement interpreting this presbytery’s understanding of certain behavioral expectations of members.
Affirming that ‘The gospel leads members to extend the fellowship of Christ to all persons.’ (G-1.0302) The Presbytery of Los Ranchos, meeting on September 15, 2011, affirms that the Bible, The Book of Confessions and the Book of Order (including G-2.0104b and G-2.0105 1 & 2) set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation. Los Ranchos Presbytery believes the manner of life of ordained Ministers should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world, including living either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness and will so notify candidates for ordination/installation and/or membership in the presbytery. In obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture and guided by our confessions, this presbytery will prayerfully and pastorally examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office, including a commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions of ordination and installation.
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – While affirming the right and obligation of an “ordaining, installing, and enrolling council, in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and guided by the confessions, to prayerfully and pastorally examine each candidate’s calling,” the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission declared that the resolution at the heart of the case of Larson, et al., v. the Presbytery of Los Ranchos, is “unconstitutional and, therefore, void.”
The resolution, approved by Los Ranchos Presbytery by a 125-51 vote on Sept. 15, 2011, read in part, “Los Ranchos Presbytery believes the manner of life of ordained ministers should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world, including living either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness and will so notify candidates for ordination/installation and/or membership in the presbytery.”
An appeal to the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii Permanent Judicial Commission (SPJC) was filed by 21 presbytery members on Oct. 14, 2011. The SPCJ declared the resolution constitutional, but also admonished the presbytery, stating that the resolution caused potential harm to the peace and unity of the denomination.
In his arguments before the GAPJC on Oct. 26, Doug Nave zeroed in on the words “will so notify candidates” contained in the resolution.
He called those words “a commitment to enforce … not a commitment to dialogue with the candidate.”
Stating that the presbytery approved the resolution soon after the denomination approved a new ordination standard that deleted the standard of “living either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” from ordination requirements, Nave said that the presbytery was “trying to shut a door that the church had opened.”
He said that the presbytery’s action in approving the resolution was “not mutual forbearance,” and that it took what “used to be a problem at the national level and made it a problem at the presbytery level.” It’s the same problem, he said, “the oppression of conscience.”
Judy Woods, representing the presbytery said that this was a very important case for the denomination, and she asked the commission to direct its attention to the Form of Government [constitution] and the authority of presbyteries. “Look at the case,” she said but not in the narrow confines of just sexual ethics, but in broader terms.
“May a presbytery pass a resolution expressing an opinion while still affirming its obligation to follow the constitution?” she asked. It’s important that the commission keep before it exactly what the presbytery did. The presbytery moved, seconded, and passed a specific resolution.
“We’re not here to judge the motives of individual presbyters. We can’t know their motives,” she said.
“There is nothing in this resolution that obstructs or limits an individual presbyter from exercising free will,” said Woods. “In this resolution the presbytery did not remove individual decision making from an individual commissioner. It commits the presbytery to following the constitution that requires case-by-case determination.”
The decision
The GAPJC stated that the issue before it was “whether the resolution adopted by presbytery is an appropriate use of a presbytery’s authority in issuing statements that ‘bear testimony against error in doctrine and immorality in life, resolve questions of doctrine and discipline, give counsel in matters of conscience and decide issues properly brought before them under the provisions of the Book of Order.’”
The decision referred to a 1993 case Presbytery of West Jersey v. the Synod of the Northeast, where the GAPJC ruled that a presbytery resolution was an “expression of opinion rather than compelling or directing any action.”
“The present case is distinguishable from West Jersey, in that in West Jersey the resolutions were addressed, or understood to be addressed to the church as a whole, whereas the resolution in the present case is addressed, to ‘candidates for ordination/installation and/or membership in the presbytery.’ Herein lies the difference,” the GAPJC decision stated.
Because the Los Ranchos resolution directed the notification to those wishing to seek admission into the presbytery, read the decision, “it would have the practical effect of discouraging those seeking ordination or membership prior to the required case by case evaluation or examination.”
In a post of her blog “Bringing the Word to Life,” the Rev. Mary Naegeli, pastor and moderator of the Presbyterian Coalition, said that “Presbyteries are barred from determining, apart from the formal examination process, what constitutes a manner of life appropriate for ordained office. A presbytery membership in full agreement about such a standard is not affected by this ruling; but a contentious presbytery will conduct the debate again and again. The evangelical and pragmatic see this as a colossal waste of time; liberals see it as an opportunity to make debates unpleasant enough to wear down opposition to a progressive trend. And then, a ‘new normal’ is adopted and the conscience violated is the conservative one.”