h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
2009-01-27 02:37:32 UTC
Given the interest in homosexual-related issues, I thought some of you
might be interested in what I've been finding out about the current
situation within the PCUSA. I'm Clerk of Session of my church, and
I've been attending Elizabeth Presbytery as a commissioner during
consideration of this year's proposed constitutional amendments.
Anyway, the current situation within the PCUSA is kind of interesting.
The national leadership would like to allow homosexual officers. The
membership is negative. The last time a relaxation of rules was
proposed (in 2001/2), it was rejected by 3/4 of the presbyteries.
A few years ago, the Book of Order was revised to specifically mention
the standard of fidelity in marriage between man and woman or chastity
in singleness. The whole section is kind of odd. It prohibits
ordination of anyone "refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged
practice which the confessions call sin." That is followed by a
section noting that Presbyterian tradition, going back to Colonial
times, has allowed a reasonable degree of freedom in interpreting
Scripture. Someone who disagrees with the official view can mention
his "scruples". The ordaining body then has to decide whether the
departure is sufficient to constitute a violation of the essential
tenents of the Reformed faith.
The GA's Permanent Judicial Commission took the view that the
"fidelity and chastity" requirement couldn't be "scrupled." In
different contexts they gave two arguments:
* unlike the more general prohibition of all sin, this one
was mentioned specifically
* scruples applied to beliefs but not practice
Unfortuantely, neither argument is supported by anything in the text
(or Scripture). While the rule does mention "fidelity and chastity"
explicitly, it simply says "among those standards is the requirement
to ..." This does not state that this standard is different than
others.
We know from the history that the people who stuck that requirement
into the constitution intended it to be mandatory. But they didn't say
so. (More likely, they simply didn't think of how this provision would
interact with the provision later on the page that allows scruples.)
The section allowing dissent says simply "freedom of conscience with
respect to the interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained."
There's nothing specific restricting this freedom to belief but not
action. Indeed the term "conscience" typically refers to what people
do.
The issue with homosexual activity is clearly one of Scriptural
interpretation. So it's not unreasonable to say that the provision
allowing dissent should apply to it, as long as the ordaining body
doesn't think that prohibition of homosexuality is an essential tenent
of the Reformed faith. In practice, most of our congregations and
Presbyteries would say it is, but not all.
In 2008, the General Assembly did three things:
* repealed its previous "authoritative interpretations" that
homosexual acts are not permitted
* adopted an "authoritative interpretation" that the section
allowing scruples applies to behavior as well as belief
* proposed that the section talking about fidelity in marriage
or chastity in singleness be removed; this requires approval
by a supermajority of Presbyteries
The first and second actions were intended to permit bodies that wish
to ordain homosexuals to do so, even if the Presbyteries don't ratify
the third item. It's pretty clear that they will not.
I have distinctly mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think it's
unhealthy for the GA to adopt an interpretation that clearly voids the
intent of 3/4 of our presbyteries. On the other hand, the matter at
hand really is one of Scriptural interpretation. So if we're going to
allow freedom of interpretation, trusting presbyteries to judge
whether they go too far, it seems odd to exempt this specific matter
of interpretation. The "fidelity and chastity" amendment could have
been written to set that standard apart from other standards, but it
wasn't.
As Commissioner, I don't get to vote on the issues of interpretation.
I just have to vote on removing "fidelity and chastity." That proposal
will clearly fail. That will leave the Judicial Commission with the
unenviable task of deciding whether to follow the clear intent of the
General Assembly's Authoritative Interpretation, or the clear intent
of the Presbyteries in approving "fidelity and chastity" in the first
place. Since the Authoritative Interpretation is nominally a
reasonable interpretation of the text as it stands, and PJCs normally
don't pay attention to original intent except as it is shown in the
text, I suspect they'll accept the authoritative interpretation.
And in 2 years we'll have yet another battle, when a number of
presbyteries demand that the Authoritative Interpretations be
reversed, and attempt to pack the house (although choosing a GA that
represents the membership and presbyteries might conceivably be
considered unpacking the house).
I actually think "fidelity and chastity" was badly written. By
treating all sins alike, it forces ordaining bodies to reject
everyone, or to make judgements about what is most serious. And it
doesn't say that fidelity and chastity is any different than any other
standard. I believe the recent authoritative interpretation is pretty
obviously right, based on the text (although not the intent), and that
any attempt to fix it for good should be done by a constitutional
amendment. My suspicion however is that in the current climate it's
going to be impossible to get a constitutional amendment either to
strengthen or weaken the current rule.
This all goes to show what damage bad writing can do. Originally folks
intended to put a prohibition against homosexual officers into the
constitution. The obvious criticism was why mention just that one sin,
when lots of other sexual sins are just as serious and more common. So
they generalized the language without thinking carefully about the
implications of the new language.
might be interested in what I've been finding out about the current
situation within the PCUSA. I'm Clerk of Session of my church, and
I've been attending Elizabeth Presbytery as a commissioner during
consideration of this year's proposed constitutional amendments.
Anyway, the current situation within the PCUSA is kind of interesting.
The national leadership would like to allow homosexual officers. The
membership is negative. The last time a relaxation of rules was
proposed (in 2001/2), it was rejected by 3/4 of the presbyteries.
A few years ago, the Book of Order was revised to specifically mention
the standard of fidelity in marriage between man and woman or chastity
in singleness. The whole section is kind of odd. It prohibits
ordination of anyone "refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged
practice which the confessions call sin." That is followed by a
section noting that Presbyterian tradition, going back to Colonial
times, has allowed a reasonable degree of freedom in interpreting
Scripture. Someone who disagrees with the official view can mention
his "scruples". The ordaining body then has to decide whether the
departure is sufficient to constitute a violation of the essential
tenents of the Reformed faith.
The GA's Permanent Judicial Commission took the view that the
"fidelity and chastity" requirement couldn't be "scrupled." In
different contexts they gave two arguments:
* unlike the more general prohibition of all sin, this one
was mentioned specifically
* scruples applied to beliefs but not practice
Unfortuantely, neither argument is supported by anything in the text
(or Scripture). While the rule does mention "fidelity and chastity"
explicitly, it simply says "among those standards is the requirement
to ..." This does not state that this standard is different than
others.
We know from the history that the people who stuck that requirement
into the constitution intended it to be mandatory. But they didn't say
so. (More likely, they simply didn't think of how this provision would
interact with the provision later on the page that allows scruples.)
The section allowing dissent says simply "freedom of conscience with
respect to the interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained."
There's nothing specific restricting this freedom to belief but not
action. Indeed the term "conscience" typically refers to what people
do.
The issue with homosexual activity is clearly one of Scriptural
interpretation. So it's not unreasonable to say that the provision
allowing dissent should apply to it, as long as the ordaining body
doesn't think that prohibition of homosexuality is an essential tenent
of the Reformed faith. In practice, most of our congregations and
Presbyteries would say it is, but not all.
In 2008, the General Assembly did three things:
* repealed its previous "authoritative interpretations" that
homosexual acts are not permitted
* adopted an "authoritative interpretation" that the section
allowing scruples applies to behavior as well as belief
* proposed that the section talking about fidelity in marriage
or chastity in singleness be removed; this requires approval
by a supermajority of Presbyteries
The first and second actions were intended to permit bodies that wish
to ordain homosexuals to do so, even if the Presbyteries don't ratify
the third item. It's pretty clear that they will not.
I have distinctly mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think it's
unhealthy for the GA to adopt an interpretation that clearly voids the
intent of 3/4 of our presbyteries. On the other hand, the matter at
hand really is one of Scriptural interpretation. So if we're going to
allow freedom of interpretation, trusting presbyteries to judge
whether they go too far, it seems odd to exempt this specific matter
of interpretation. The "fidelity and chastity" amendment could have
been written to set that standard apart from other standards, but it
wasn't.
As Commissioner, I don't get to vote on the issues of interpretation.
I just have to vote on removing "fidelity and chastity." That proposal
will clearly fail. That will leave the Judicial Commission with the
unenviable task of deciding whether to follow the clear intent of the
General Assembly's Authoritative Interpretation, or the clear intent
of the Presbyteries in approving "fidelity and chastity" in the first
place. Since the Authoritative Interpretation is nominally a
reasonable interpretation of the text as it stands, and PJCs normally
don't pay attention to original intent except as it is shown in the
text, I suspect they'll accept the authoritative interpretation.
And in 2 years we'll have yet another battle, when a number of
presbyteries demand that the Authoritative Interpretations be
reversed, and attempt to pack the house (although choosing a GA that
represents the membership and presbyteries might conceivably be
considered unpacking the house).
I actually think "fidelity and chastity" was badly written. By
treating all sins alike, it forces ordaining bodies to reject
everyone, or to make judgements about what is most serious. And it
doesn't say that fidelity and chastity is any different than any other
standard. I believe the recent authoritative interpretation is pretty
obviously right, based on the text (although not the intent), and that
any attempt to fix it for good should be done by a constitutional
amendment. My suspicion however is that in the current climate it's
going to be impossible to get a constitutional amendment either to
strengthen or weaken the current rule.
This all goes to show what damage bad writing can do. Originally folks
intended to put a prohibition against homosexual officers into the
constitution. The obvious criticism was why mention just that one sin,
when lots of other sexual sins are just as serious and more common. So
they generalized the language without thinking carefully about the
implications of the new language.