A Witherspoon comment
from Gene TeSelle, Witherspoon Society Issues Analyst
[2-18-08]

The PJC decisions need to be corrected – by a new Authoritative Interpretation and by deleting or replacing G-6.0106b

The recent decisions of the General Assembly's Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) in three cases are disappointing in that they give an over-simplified response to a complex question and introduce further confusions into the life of the church.

1. What do these PJC decisions affirm?

The AI is in line with the longstanding practice of the Presbyterian Church ever since the Adopting Act of 1729, which allowed "scruples" or "departures" from the written standards as long as they do not affect the "essentials" of Reformed doctrine, polity, or practice. This policy has been ratified and reaffirmed over and over, especially in the numerous reunions of Presbyterian churches, when issues that had previously divided them were resolved by acknowledging the legitimacy of diverse interpretations of their constitutional standards. The 2006 AI is in line with the position taken by the Swearingen Commission in the wake of the fundamentalist controversy and approved by the General Assemblies of 1926 and 1927, noting the difficulty of stating the "essentials" of the Reformed tradition in any final and authoritative way.

Several presbyteries have adopted resolutions or policies that try to specify the essentials of Reformed faith and polity, and the PJC has now said that these declarations obstruct the provision that a governing body is responsible for examining candidates (G-10.0102l, G-11.0103n). It has reaffirmed the statement of the AI that each candidate must be examined individually, without using a selected list of essentials.

2. What do these decisions deny?

It has been evident for many years that the central issue — or at least a major "wedge issue" capable of motivating a large number of people — is same-sex relationships.

G-6.0106b, adopted in 1996-97, prohibits ordination of any person refusing to repent of a practice that Scripture calls sin. There are many activities that the Bible calls sins, and Presbyterians are clearly divided over whether, or in what sense, some of them are even sins. Despite this, same-sex relations have been singled out, and the people involved in them have been scapegoated as the essence of sin. We must note that the meaning and application of this paragraph, even as it applies to same-sex relationships, are contested and will continue to be the subject of many appeals to the Permanent Judicial Commission.

3. How do these decisions confuse our priorities?

The recent PJC decisions go against the letter and the spirit of the AI by opening the way to a fateful differentiation between doctrine (in which it permits "scruples") and practice (in which it seems to permit none).

There are many who wish to identify the "essentials" of Reformed polity by the Book of Order's use of terms such as "shall," "is/are to be," and "requirement."

Lynne Reade, a retired attorney and former Witherspoon Society board member, did a word count to see how often the word "shall" is used in the Book of Order. She came up with 1388. She finds it incredible that there would be this many Presbyterian "essentials."

Acknowledging that she might have missed a few "shalls," "is to be's," and "requirements," she suggested a contest to see who can come up with the correct number, and at the General Assembly we could all celebrate their contribution to theological debate.

We may concede that the Book of Order has many "shalls." Clearly these vary greatly in importance. To make them all essentials is to elevate legal requirements enacted by the church — human traditions, not divine commands (cf. Mt. 15:1-11) — to a primary position, above "the weightier matters of the law" (cf. Mt. 23:23), and above doctrinal issues, many of which, including the traditional Reformed shibboleth of predestination, remain too mysterious or too controversial to be called essentials by even the most zealous.

4. What is the current situation?

According G-13.0103r, the General Assembly may interpret the Book of Order either through an authoritative interpretation or through a decision of its Permanent Judicial Commission. And of course the church may amend either the Book of Order or the Book of Confessions by following the procedures laid down in G-18.0201 and 0301. We are left with three parallel sources of authority, any of which can interpret and perhaps alter what was intended by the others.

5. What can we do now?

The PJC decisions upholding the letter of G-6.0106b are authoritative for the time being. They have gone against the letter and the spirit of the most recent Authoritative Interpretation by the General Assembly.

The PJC's interpretation (or misinterpretation, as many of us see it) can be corrected in two ways, both of which should be pursued.

The coming General Assembly can and should issue a new Authoritative Interpretation.

At a minimum this should declare that not every "shall" in the Book of Order is an essential of Reformed polity, leaving many of these details to discernment by governing bodies or to further interpretation in judicial cases or interpretations by the General Assemly.

But the Assembly can do more. It can correct these recent rulings by the PJC to state that ordination requirements are also subject to discernment by governing bodies in accordance with G-6.0108b.

abominable scruples
[2-28-08]

Dearly beloved!

I have always opposed any and all restorations of monastic vows in the courts of our church.

I agree with Martin Luther's arguments, as did John Calvin, in his work opposing monastic vows. I also agree with Calvin's finding that monastic vows, mixed with superstition, are based on our ability to earn God's favor and so cannot be anything other than abominations in God's sight. How dare we have reinstated vows of chastity and obedience? I find the resulting judicial flagellations wholly unbefitting the Reformed tradition.

What next? Will we now restore the vow of poverty?

Rev. Ralph Garlin Clingan, PhD, member, the Board of Directors of PHEWA, Professor of Theology, Saint Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ

The Presbytery of John Knox has adopted an overture asking the 218^th General Assembly (2008) to adopt the following Authoritative Interpretation of Section G-6.0108 of the Book of Order:

The requirements of G-6.0108 apply equally to all ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse a candidate's inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).

Dr. Mark Achtemeier, in a letter to Knox Presbytery sent with the proposed overture, explained that "This overture is prompted by events of this past Monday, in which the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission issued a decision (Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh) that effectively nullifies Recommendation 5 of the [PUP Task Force].”

Achtemeier’s intent is apparently to recover some of what the PUP Task Force intended, by allowing the possibility of departures for standards in the Book of Order relating to behavior as well as belief.

Read the report of PresbyWeb >>

More Light Presbyterians issue statement on PJC ruling

[2-18-08]

It’s About Time!

It’s about time for all disciples of Jesus Christ to take a stand

for those who are still denied full participation in our church –

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender sisters and brothers,

whom God loves and calls to faith and ministry.

It’s about time to end

the task forces, studies, judicial cases, interpretations,

and other abuses

that continue the unconscionable discriminatory policies of our church.

It’s about time to lay aside our fears:

Fear of the unknown – fear of schism,

Fear of those who are different.

“God is love…there is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.”
1 John, 4:16, 18

It’s about time to do the right thing,

to delete G-6.0106b which has created so much strife in our beloved church.

It’s about time to trust in God’s wildly inclusive love,

and remove the boundaries we have set

around God’s free, unmerited grace.

It’s about time to make our church a welcoming community,

where everyone has an equal place at God’s table.

It’s about time!

Dr. Paul Capetz, who was restored to ordained ministry just three weeks ago by action of the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area, has written this very personal comment (slightly edited) in response to friends who have been contacting him to express their concern and support.

[2-18-08]

Since many of you have expressed concern for me these past few days since the PJC handed down its ruling which portends to overturn the presbytery's decision to restore me to ordained office, I send you these observations and thoughts.

Frankly, I just haven't been answering my phone – I haven't got the energy even to talk with people. I'm feeling punched in the gut by the church – waiting for the PJC to overturn the presbytery's decision restoring me to ordained minister – I can't begin to put together into words all my thoughts and feelings – sheer disbelief and outrage may be close to the mark.

I never would have requested to be restored if I hadn't been completely convinced from a close reading of the PUP report that was adopted as AI by the GA in 2006 that this was a completely legal thing to do. Moreover, the Committee on Ministry and the presbytery would never have gone through such a lengthy and complicated process had not everyone believed that this was in accord with the polity. Furthermore, the COM and presbytery were so careful to do everything "decently and in order" so that no missteps were taken.

And now this? What does it mean? I can't help but think that the members of the PUP taskforce must be feeling completely betrayed. And I can't help but think that it's just a matter of time before the presbytery's decision in my case is overturned.

I didn’t think it was possible for my estimate of the church to sink any lower than it already was. It's been 30 years since the 1978 San Diego GA first adopted its "Definitive Guidance" after accepting the Task Force's "minority report" and rejecting the "majority report." And after 30 years nothing in this church has changed with respect to gay people. Unbelievable. I wish you could have been there at the presbytery meeting when I was answering questions and engaging in debate. Aside from the complete ignorance about the Reformed tradition evident on the part of those who wanted to maintain an absolute ban, there is a total unwillingness on their part even to acknowledge the human pain inflicted on people by their policies.

The other day I thought to myself, "Behind all this there is a real lovelessness toward people – these guys do not love human beings as human beings." I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of psychoanalytic explanation would account for what is going on: a deep discomfort with their own sexuality and I am the projected image of their fears and anxieties. Or a Nietzschean resentment toward all persons who dare to live life out of their strengths and passions. Something utterly bizarre and evil is at work here.

[2-18-08]

Pastoral Letter from the Co-Moderators
of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians
on the recent decisions of the
Permanent Judicial Commission

Dear Friends:

Earlier this week the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly issued several rulings.

One decision of the PJC was profoundly disappointing. In the case of Bush v. Pittsburgh Presbytery, the PJC ruled that the second sentence (including “chastity in singleness”) of G.6-0106b is an “essential of Reformed faith and polity,” from which behavioral departure is not acceptable for those seeking church office. This ruling lifts one sentence in the Book of Order to a position of authority above all others in the Constitution, including the Book of Confessions of the church. We do not believe that there is any sound theological or legal basis for making such a distinction.

Other features of the Bush decision, and all the rulings in two other cases, Buescher et al. vs. the Presbytery of Olympia and Washington et al. vs. the Presbytery of Washington , were encouraging. They reemphasized local application of ordination standards, in line with the Authoritative Interpretation adopted by the 217th General Assembly, and they ruled unconstitutional attempts of presbyteries and sessions to create their own lists of essential requirements for ordination. Further, they upheld the right of candidates to declare departures of conscience regarding both behavior and belief. These are important confirmations of freedom of conscience and the discerning approach to ordination that the Assembly commended to the whole church.

Despite these important affirmations, the ruling in Bush is deeply hurtful. It harms the church as well as the many gifted and called Presbyterians whose service it would deny.

For decades, the church has been locked in a painful and polarizing struggle over issues of ordination. It is particularly disappointing that, having been offered a better way by the 217th General Assembly, the GAPJC now endangers the peace, unity, and purity of the church with this ruling. In inexplicably lifting up one sentence as outside the bounds of discernment, they appear to have disregarded the wisdom of that General Assembly and its clear intention as made explicit in the report of the Theological Task Force. We pledge to do everything we can to help set the church back on the path that the PJC decision has partially blocked.

We vigorously disagree with the Permanent Judicial Commission. Strengthened in resolve by the persistence with which God is leading the church toward justice, we will work with new energy in every way for a church as generous and just as God’s grace.

Grace and Peace,

Blogger John Shuck offers a sharp look at the state of the PC(USA) in light of the recent GA PJC decision, and the various battle lines that seem to be shaping up for the 218^th General Assembly, to be held in San Jose, Cal., June 21 - 28, 2008.

Pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Elizabethton, Tenn., Shuck is clear and thoughtful and very forthright in his opinions. And sometimes funny, too. Whether you’re on the left, or right, or somewhere in the “broad middle” of the Presbyterian Church, you may disagree with his views. We know he’ll welcome your notes of discontent (or who knows, maybe even a good word or two). And we hope you’ll send us a note here, too, so we can talk more about it here.

He concludes:

It is time for moderates to stand up and do the good thing. Yes, if the June GA does remove the AI and send to the presbyteries the opportunity to remove G-6.0106b there will be an outcry from the right wing. They will be well-funded. They will threaten to shoot the denomination in the head by withholding funds and so forth. It will get ugly. So? Toughen up.

Heterosexual prejudice is the presenting issue. That is only the surface issue. The real issues are much deeper. These issues are ultimately about freedom. Freedom of thought and freedom to change and to grow. Fundamentalists will have none of that. No, you may not like many of my or others' progressive theological ideas. But it is good for you that we participate in a denomination in which we can express them.

Freedom of thought does not come without the willingness to defend it. Moderates, you are the ones who will make it happen or not. I hope that you will go with your heart on the lgbt issue and go for freedom of thought on theological, social, and political issues. Only from that standpoint can we really be a church that can address the issues we face that are much larger than worrying about who has gay cooties.

Obviously those who seek a more just and inclusive church will be going to the General Assembly in San Jose (June 21 - 28, 2008) with hopes for making changes.

We are offering here reports of overtures that have been passed by various presbyteries, and will try to keep up with further developments as they occur. 

If you're aware of other overtures or approaches, please let us know, and we'll add your reports!  Just send a note.

Current reports include:

The Presbytery of Boston and the Presbytery of Pittsburgh have passed overtures that would correct the mistranslation in 1962 which added the phrase "or of homosexual perversion" that was not part of the original Heidelberg Catechism.

On the Pittsburgh action >>

The overture from the Presbytery of Boston >>

A major
Ghost Ranch event this summer!

July 28 - August 3, 2008

Paths toward Peace and Justice:
Spirituality, Earth-Care, and the Prophetic Word in a time of Violence

If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep this website going ... and growing!

Please consider making a special contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.

Click here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.

Or send your check, made out to "Witherspoon Society" and marked "web site," to our Witherspoon  Bookkeeper: