Task force proposal on ordination comes close to local option
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, August 25, 2005
CHICAGO – Insisting it was not proposing that sessions and presbyteries be granted local option on whether to ordain practicing homosexuals, the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church nonetheless has proposed a close kin.
The task force’s members amended and approved the final section of their report – seven recommendations, including one calling on the 217th General Assembly to approve an authoritative interpretation on G-6.0108 in the Book of Order.
The proposed authoritative interpretation, they said, would restore a balance to the process of ordaining officers, allowing them to declare a “scruple” if they cannot in good conscience support a constitutional provision. Furthermore, it would allow a presbytery to determine whether a candidate’s homosexual practice was violation of an “essential” policy.
Besides the proposed authoritative interpretation, the task force recommendations included:
1. An appeal for every member of the denomination to witness to the visible oneness of the Presbyterian Church (USA), to avoid divisions into other denominations and strengthen their relationships with “one another and the General Assembly.”
2. Urging other Presbyterian groups to “follow the example” of the task force members with “intensive discernment in the face of difficult issues through study, worship, community-building and collaborative effort.”
3. Study the task force’s Theological Reflection.
4. Consider means of decision-making that are not limited to up-and-down votes.
6. A recommendation that the General Assembly, if it approves the task force’s proposed authoritative interpretation, not approve any change in the constitutional “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard or the Authoritative Interpretation that undergirds it.
The authoritative interpretation was listed as the fifth recommendation. The text is:
5. The task force recommends that the 217th general Assembly adopt the following interpretation of G-6.0108 of the Book of Order:
(1) The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government of the Book of Order set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation.
(2) These standards are determined by the whole church, after the careful study of Scripture and theology, solely by the constitutional process of approval by the General Assembly with the concurrence of the presbyteries. These standards may be interpreted by the General Assembly and its Permanent Judicial Commission.
(3) Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as the corporate expressions of the church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards to those elected to office. These determinations include:
a. Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation as elder, deacon or minister of the Word and Sacrament has departed from Scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office.
b. Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation.
(4) Whether the ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully and deliberately in deciding to ordain a candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing bodies.
(5) All parties should endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another’s decisions, according to the presumption of wisdom to ordaining/installing bodies in examining candidates and to the General Assembly, with presbyteries’ ratification in setting standards.
The effect of that proposed authoritative interpretation would be, as the task force describes in its rationale:
“The proposed interpretation requires ordaining and installing bodies to examine carefully both the doctrinal views and the manner of life of those elected to office. If an ordaining or installing body determines that an officer-elect has departed from G-6.0106b [the fidelity/chastity ordination requirement], a manner-of-life standard, the ordaining/installing body must then determine whether this departure violates essentials of faith or polity. If so, the candidates may not be ordained. If the departure is judged not to violate the essentials of Reformed faith and polity, after the ordaining/installing body has weighed the departure in the full context of a candidate’s statement of faith and manner of life, then there is no barrier to ordination (though there also is no requirement that the person be ordained). As at present, the ordaining/installing body would make the decision about whether to ordain and/or install with the help of the Spirit and based on all the evidence before it.”
Stacy Johnson, a member of the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary, said the task force’s proposed authoritative interpretation is not local option, but the “framework to look at any standard.”
“No matter what a particular governing body does, I think first they have to keep the standards in place,” Johnson said. “Anyone who wants to claim this is local option has a hard point to prove.”
Task force members said the components of the authoritative interpretation were not new – they include the right of ordaining bodies to approve candidates, consideration of essentials, allowing candidates to state their scruples against a policy. But the “slightly new twist,” Johnson said, “is that we’re emphasizing the power of governing bodies to determine their own membership.”
Task force members said the proposed authoritative interpretation would restore a balance between the church’s standards and individual conscience.
At the conclusion of adopting the recommendations, the members of the task force gave their impressions of the panel’s work. None objected to the final report or the proposed authoritative interpretation. None suggested that there would be a minority report. All expressed appreciation for each other and the work of the group.
The final report will be mailed to congregations in September. It is now posted on the Web site of the Theological Task Force, but some of the editorial changes had not been made early Thursday afternoon.