The Book of Suggestions
By Parker T. Williamson, July 23, 2002
The Layman Online applauds the Presbyterian Coalition for its strong stand in lifting up the Presbyterian Church (USA) Constitution through articles published both before and after the recent meeting of the 214th General Assembly.
In the plethora of recent amendments and attempted amendments that has consumed the church’s attention in recent years, much has been said regarding the content of our constitution. An overwhelming majority of Presbyterians has affirmed and reaffirmed the content of that document. But of equal importance is the matter of its enforcement. All Presbyterian renewal organizations have declared that it is critical to the future of our denomination that the PCUSA Constitution be revered and obeyed.
An unenforceable constitution cannot be considered authoritative in any legal or practical sense. Calling an unenforceable document a “constitution” would be a misnomer, since it would be simply an expression of sentiment, easily dismissed by those who disagree with it. The question before Presbyterians is therefore: In what sense is the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) enforceable? To answer this question, one must make an additional query: Is anyone responsible for ensuring compliance with the constitution?
The Permanent Judicial System says ‘no’
Permanent Judicial Commissions (PJC) have declared that their function does not include enforcement. Witness, for example, a PJC decision in the Presbytery of Cascades wherein a person who openly practices homosexual behavior was ordained. The PJC ruled that this ordination was “irregular,” but it refused to invalidate the ordination, claiming it could render opinions, but that enforcement was beyond the scope of its authority.
The Stated Clerk says ‘no’
After the General Assembly PJC ruled that the governing body of a local church cannot defy the constitution, Presbyterians across the country asked Clifton Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, whose duty is “to preserve and defend the constitution,” to apply the court’s ruling to the handful of churches that have declared they will not obey the constitution. Kirkpatrick announced his opinion that these churches should comply, but he added that enforcement is not his job.
The General Assembly Says ‘no’
If the judicial system will not ensure compliance with the constitution, and the general assembly’s chief constitutional officer will not, then this task becomes a responsibility of the denomination’s governing bodies. That responsibility is specified in the Standing Rules of the General Assembly, which requires the stated clerk to report a PJC decision that calls for compliance and to reveal what measures have been taken to ensure compliance. The rules then state that the general assembly may take whatever action it deems necessary to ensure compliance, if it believes that compliance has not been achieved.
But when the 214th General Assembly met in Columbus, Ohio, to consider an issue of compliance with the constitution, commissioners had before them previous statements by the stated clerk urging the general assembly not to get involved in compliance issues. Statements from his office, and the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (which he serves as staff), declared that (in their opinion) the Standing Rules of the General Assembly are outmoded and in conflict with the constitution, and therefore the general assembly should not follow them. Kirkpatrick opined that compliance issues are judicial issues, so they should be referred back to the judicial system, the very system that says enforcement is not its business.
A Bad Idea
The PJC said ‘no.’The stated clerk said ‘no.’ Now the general assembly has voted ‘no’ on an overture that would have ensured compliance with the constitution. These three strikes have rendered the constitution, at least temporarily, unenforceable. If there is anything about the general assembly’s decision for which we can be thankful, it is the fact that when this group shirked its responsibility to ensure compliance with the constitution, it did not state a reason for its action. Nothing in the text of the general assembly’s decision gives credence to the stated clerk’s erroneous opinion. Thus the bad idea that a general assembly has neither the power nor the responsibility to ensure compliance with the constitution remains merely the clerk’s bad idea (and that of his supporters).
Should a day ever come when that idea becomes authoritative, i.e., enacted by constitutional amendment or by some future general assembly’s “authoritative interpretation,” the Presbyterian Church (USA) will find that it no longer has a constitution. The Book of Order will become a Book of Suggestions. On that day, those who have failed in three national referenda to get the people of this church to change the content of their constitution, will have achieved their purpose by rendering that content meaningless.