Decision to exempt congregation from constitution is overthrown
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, October 14, 1999
The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Northeast has overturned a presbytery’s decision to exempt a Presbyterian congregation from the fidelity/chastity requirement for ordination of deacons, elders and ministers.
In an 11-0 decision, the commission declared “null and void and of no effect” a vote on Dec. 5, 1998, by the Presbytery of Northern New England that exempted the 76-member Christ Church of Burlington, Vt., from the chastity/fidelity standard required for deacons, elders and ministers in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Compliance order still in effect
Further, the commission said the session of Christ Church remains under a previous presbytery order to provide evidence of compliance with the ordination standard, which is G-6.0106b in the Book of Order.
The commission’s order said the presbytery “shall continue to work pastorally with the session of Christ Church with the ultimate goal of bringing them into compliance with the law as it now exists.”
Copies of the decision in Session of Londonderry, et al, v. the Presbytery of Northern New England reached parties in the case on October 14. It was the second decision in two days in which the synod commission ruled decisively against efforts to make the ordination standard meaningless.
On October 13, the synod commission voted 8-3 to overturn the installation of a homosexual elder who said he was living with another gay but was “chaste in the eyes of God.”
Two cases to be heard in N.J.
The commission will hear two more challenges to the ordination standard in Newark, N.J., on November 3 and 4. One opposes the decision by the Hudson River Presbytery that affirms participation by Presbyterian ministers, and use of Presbyterian churches, in same-sex “holy unions.” The other challenges the West Jersey Presbytery for accepting as a candidate for ministry an openly homosexual man.
In Northern New England, the 76-member Christ Church of Burlington, Vt., adopted a statement of dissent from G-6.0106b. It “condemned” the ordination standard as “hypocrisy regarding inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Christians in the full life of the church” and “bad polity which will serve only to further distrust, intolerance and chaos in the church.”
Presbytery changed its position
The presbytery first ordered Christ Church to comply with the Book of Order, but later reconsidered. It appointed a committee to draft possible responses. The proposed responses ranged from continued admonition that Christ Church obey the constitution to concurrence with Christ Church’s opposition. In its final vote on the matter, the presbytery endorsed Christ Church’s repudiation of G-6.0106b.
The presbytery’s decision was challenged almost immediately.
In its written decision, the synod commission said there are acceptable ways for a governing body to express its disagreement with a denominational policy, but that they do not include outright violation of the constitution.
A resolution opposing a policy, without any expressed intention to violate the policy, is an acceptable form of disagreement, the commission said. But a declaration of intent to violate the constitution creates the danger of schism, the synod said. The decision quoted from a 1983 report to the 195th General Assembly that said schism can result “when a governing body violates the constitution in which our visible unity is defined.”
That was the thrust of the argument made by the complainants who were represented by Julius J. Poppinga during a hearing on October 7 in New Bedford, N.H. Poppinga also used the 1983 report, titled “Historic Principles, Conscience and Church Government,” quoting a statement that said, “‘No single congregation can stand by itself.'”
Case ‘challenges our oneness’
In his presentation, Poppinga’ said the action by Christ Church and the concurrence of the presbytery “challenges our oneness” and “puts in jeopardy our connectionalism that defines the Presbyterian Church (USA) … We’re not here to chastise the presbytery, to rebuke anyone. Our action is not punitive. It’s remedial, corrective. We have no choice. What we are dealing with today goes to the very core of our denomination.”
The commission’s ruling quoted from the Christ Church resolution that said “we vow to continue welcoming persons living singly or in committed relationships, regardless of sexual orientation, into the life, membership and leadership of this congregation on an equal basis, including eligibility for election and ordination as a ruling elder.”
In response to that assertion, the commission said, “Although it is true that the official policy of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is to prohibit ordination and installation on the basis of practice and not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, the session’s action nevertheless expresses an intention not to comply with an explicit constitutional provision.”
Presbytery failed its responsibility
The commission said the presbytery failed in its responsibility to see “‘that the orders of higher governing bodies are observed and carried out.’ At a minimum the presbytery had a responsibility to determine that the session’s resolution was an irregularity and to record its disapproval of the session’s resolution.”
The commission said the presbytery had no authority to override its first resolution requiring that Christ Church abide by the constitution. “The presbytery … shall either require compliance with … (that) resolution or such other action as the presbytery shall take so that the sessions shall be moving toward compliance with Maxwell v. Pittsburgh Presbytery…“
In Maxwell v. Pittsburgh Presbytery, a benchmark case for liberals in the denomination, a candidate for ministry was denied ordination after he stated that he was opposed to the ordination of women and could not in good conscience support such ordinations.
Poppinga had argued that Christ Church, in a similar way, had declared its opposition to a constitutional standard even before that standard was applied in the congregation. He added, “There is no power to allow a session to grant an exemption to the constitution.”