« The End of the PCUSA? Revisited | Home | A Brief Account of the Not-So-Brief History of the PCUSA and Homosexuality, Section 1 »
What Did the General Assembly Do to Endanger the Existence of the PCUSA?
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Part 2 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
As I explained in my last post, the Presbyterian Church USA is on the ropes, at best, perhaps even down for the count, or even fully knocked out, at worst. Though my denomination has been on a downward course for decades, what happened in our latest General Assembly meeting in San Jose, California, has brought the PCUSA ever closer to its demise. (Photo: The San Jose Convention Center, where the General Assembly convened, from my hotel room. The Convention Center is the large building with the curved roof in the upper center of the photo.)
Much of what happened in the General Assembly was quite positive. The Assembly reaffirmed the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, rather than giving in to the cultural pressure to endorse same-sex marriage. The Assembly also approved a statement that called upon Presbyterians to “Grow God’s Church Deep and Wide.”
But several actions of the General Assembly have stirred up a storm of concern among many Presbyterians, as I demonstrated in my last post. Not all of them have to do with ordination and sexuality, but these are clearly the most incendiary. In order to explain these controversial actions fairly, I will quote from a letter sent by denominational leaders to churches and pastors. These leaders, who support the actions of the Assembly and who are positive about the future of the denomination, describe the contentious items in this way:
Perhaps the subject that will make the most headlines has to do with the ordination standards of our church. It is a subject with which Presbyterians are familiar and one that tends to evoke great debates and deep emotions. With that in mind, we want you to know what the assembly did—in the actual wording—in regard to ordination standards, and what will happen next.
- By a 54% to 46% margin, the assembly voted to propose an amendment to our Book of Order to change one of our current ordination standards. The change is to replace the current language that says officers of the church must live by “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” (G-6.0106b) to this new language: Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.
- By a 53% to 47% vote, the assembly adopted a new Authoritative Interpretation (AI) on G-6.0106b: Interpretive statements concerning ordained service of homosexual church members by the 190th General Assembly (1978) of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and the 119th General Assembly (1979) of the Presbyterian Church in the United States and all subsequent affirmations thereof, have no further force or effect.
- By a 54% to 46% vote, the assembly adopted a new AI on G-6.0108 which restores the intent of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church report (2006) to allow someone who is being considered for ordination or installation as a deacon, elder, or minister to register a conscientious objection to the standards or beliefs of the church and ask the ordaining body to enter into a conversation with them to determine the seriousness of the departure.
- The assembly left unchanged the definition of marriage found in the Directory for Worship (W-4.9000)—“a civil contract between a woman and a man.”
By its actions, the assembly has initiated a new opportunity to focus ordination on primary allegiance and obedience to Jesus Christ, as well as to Scripture and the church’s confessions. The assembly places the responsibility onto sessions and presbyteries for discerning a candidate’s fitness for ordination.
If you’re unfamiliar with the way Presbyterians do business, let me add a couple of words of explanation and commentary:
1. Out of context, the new language proposed for the Book of Order would be unobjectionable, even laudable. How wonderful that candidates for ordination “pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions.” Yet by removing the call for candidates to pledge to live by “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness,” this amendment clearly and intentionally implies that one can fulfill the standards for ordination while being sexually active outside of marriage. This would be true for both gay and straight candidates, by the way.
2. The proposed change to the Book of Order is not in force until it is approved by a majority of the presbyteries (regional governing bodies) of the church. Twice before, in 1997-98 and 2001-2, the General Assembly voted to remove the fidelity and chastity clause, but this was rejected by the presbyteries. This could very well happen again. But that’s why my next point is so significant.
3. Perhaps the actions of greatest concern are the most confusing of all. The Assembly adopted two new Authoritative Interpretations of the Book of Order. One of these revoked a 30-year understanding that homosexual behavior is sinful. The other gave candidates for ordination the opportunity “to register a conscientious objection to the standards or beliefs of the church and ask the ordaining body to enter into a conversation with them to determine the seriousness of the departure.” By clear implication, this is meant to give the governing body the freedom to decide that the departure is not serious enough to preclude ordination. In others words, even though the Book of Order currently requires a candidate to live by fidelity and chastity, a local governing body is free to decide that this isn’t required, or that “fidelity” could mean “faithful within a homosexual relationship” or something similar. (Prof. Robert Gagnon believes that the new Authoritative Interpretation actually doesn’t give such freedom to a governing body. Though I hope he’s right, I don’t share his confidence. And even if he is right, logically speaking, I sincerely doubt governing bodies and judicial commissions in the PCUSA will think as clearly as Gagnon about the matter.)
4. As a leader, I understand the need to put a happy face on a sad situation. Generally we call this spin. I must confess that I find the statement that “the assembly has initiated a new opportunity to focus ordination on primary allegiance and obedience to Jesus Christ, as well as to Scripture and the church’s confessions” to be a good example of such spin. The letter is more forthright when it says, a couple of paragraphs later: “We know the assembly actions may do little to ease the anxiety that seems to permeate our life together as a denomination. The debate isn’t new and the future holds difficult challenges.” Once again, however, spin is crouching at the door. The actions of the General Assembly didn’t just “do little to ease the anxiety.” Rather, they greatly added to that anxiety, and, in fact pushed the PCUSA into a new level of crisis.
5. Given the General Assembly’s actions to allow for gay and lesbian people to be ordained, presumably because the majority of the Assembly believed that physical intimacy between members of the same sex can be okay, I find the Assembly’s failure to redefine marriage to be particularly odd. If one believes that gay sex is right in some context, then the only context in which this could be possible, from a theological point of view, would be a marriage relationship between same-sex partners. Though I don’t believe the Bible gives support to the idea of same-sex marriage, I do believe that the only defensible position by those who allow for gay ordination would be in the case of same-sex marriage. By allowing for the rightness of same-sex intimacy, but not approving of same-sex marriage, the General Assembly has implicitly ordained sex outside of marriage. I expect the Assembly believed, rightly so, that though consistency required the approval of same-sex marriage, a vote to do this would have euthanized the PCUSA immediately.
If you’re watching all of this from the bleachers, you may wonder why some of us PCUSA types are so upset by what happened at the General Assembly. Then again, you may wonder why any of us are sticking around in a denomination that has strayed so far from biblical teaching. In order to understand what has happened and why we have responded as we have, you need a bit of history concerning the PCUSA and homosexuality. I’ll supply this bit in my next post.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? |
15 Responses to “What Did the General Assembly Do to Endanger the Existence of the PCUSA?”
Comments
Thanks for your willingness to make a comment. Note: I do not moderate comments before they are posted, though they are automatically screened for profanities, spam, etc., and sometimes the screening program holds comments for moderation even though they're not offensive. I encourage open dialogue and serious disagreement, and am always willing to learn from my mistakes. I will not delete comments unless they are extraordinarily rude or irrelevant to the topic at hand. You do need to login in order to make a comment, because this cuts down on spam. You are free to use a nickname if you wish. Finally, I will eventually read all comments, but I don't have the time to respond to them on a consistent basis because I've got a few other demands on my time, like my "day job," my family, sleep, etc.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:15 am
I couldn’t help but notice that those sure look like purple jacaranda trees blooming in the park outside your hotel room. One of God’s more beautiful creations, and another small reminder that He is always there in the midst of whatever we are going through, if we just look for Him.
We are going to be discussing our church’s response to GA at Session next week, so I am looking forward to your insights. I think we are in for difficult times. Prayer, and seeking to follow the Holy Spirit’s guidance, become all the more critical. We know, however, that His grace will be sufficient in all things.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:32 am
Mark, I am so grateful for your faithful and clear voice in the PC(USA). I know some wonder why we stick around in the PC(USA), but I for one am glad you’ve stuck around, because we need sound thinking like this to help us respond to the state of our denomination and to help us become more faithful moving ahead, wherever that leads us.
Your talk at the PFR Breakfast, at GA, was superb. I’m going to post the audio of the talk on the PFR website today or tomorrow. Keep it up!
July 9th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Am I correct in understanding that, even if the change to the Book of Order (what you label #2 above) is voted down by the presbyteries, the Authoritative Interpretation giving local bodies the power to decide whether or not follow the Book of Order (#3) is still in force. Or does the AI need to be voted on by the presbyteries as well?
July 9th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Kyler: The widespread understanding is that the Authoritative Interpretation does allow presbyteries and sessions (for elders) to interpret the Book of Order with sufficient freedom as to allow for the ordination of gay and lesbian people, even though this is prohibited in the Book of Order. This seems crazy to me. But this is what is currently believed and will be practiced by many.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I was a commissioner to this GA– the reason that the GA did not pass the marriage amendments was another manipulated decision by those who controlled the assembly. I was sitting front and center and watched it happen.
When the substitute motion (to approve the marriage amendments) was made, and the momentum in the room for passage became obvious, Grady Parsons forced the moderator to call an early recess for dinner (ten minutes early). The Assembly objected, but the moderator prevailed.
The marriage amendments were too far to go “for now.” If we had continued ten more minutes in session, they would have passed.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Thank you for a thoughtful piece, Mark. In answer to Kyler’s question, yes, the AIs enacted by the GA are in force immediately, without ratification of the presbyteries. That is another reason why so many of us are upset about the outcome. Even if G-6 is retained, the official definitions of “fidelity” and “chastity” have been erased from our corporate memory. There was a motion ready on the floor to amend the AI nullification, by adding “only if G-6.0106b is removed from the book of order by action of the presbyteries.” But debate was truncated and the opportunity was lost.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Clay: Wow! Thanks for your insider’s perspective. Not a happy one, but an important one.
Mary: You’re welcome. Thanks for your effort through the church courts to get some of this cleaned up.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
As a lawyer, I’ve been baffled how an “AI” can essentially nullify a provision of the Book of Order. In secular law, it is a generally-accepted principle of jurisprudence that the instrument that requires a higher effort to modify controls over one with a lower standard. Examples: A state statute cannot be contrary to the federal Constitution; an admministrative regulation enacted by a board or agency cannot be contrary to the statute which it is purporting to implement.
This is only common sense, otherwise a fundamental provision of law that takes a super-majority to amend (such as our US Constitution which is exceptionally difficult to change) can be nullified by another law which only required a majority vote for passage. (There is another gambit in secular law of getting the courts to nullify provisions, but that is a whole different discussion for another time.)
Here, the GA’s process of playing with AIs in 2006 and 2008 is obviously an attempt to change the underlying fidelity and chastity provisions of the Book of Order, which they haven’t been able to change directly because they do not have enough support. My impression was that the GAPCJ (the denomination’s highest “court”?) ruled this was impermissible and therefore struck down the 2006 AI which allowed scruples to fidelity and chastity. I would assume that these latest modifications to AIs are similarly ineffective to change the underlying general standard, and it still applies notwithstanding all the liberal assertions to the contrary.
They may now have gotten rid of the earlier AIs (which themselves were ok, because they were in line with the requirements of the Book of Order standards, not contrary to them), but they thereby still cannot change the underlying standards. Only amending the Book of Order can do that, and I think we have to work hard to make sure that proposal is defeated in the presbyteries.
I have to say, however, that the intricacies of governance of PCUSA and its “polity” (I can’t stand the use of that word, it’s a nonsense word and your suspicions should be aroused any time anyone starts talking about being in line with PCUSA “polity”) are beyond the understanding of this secular lawyer. The decision that you cannot violate the prohibition against conducting a same-sex marriage by conducting a same-sex marriage, because the PCUSA doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage so therefore it couldn’t have happened even though it did, is something straight out of Alice in Wonderland.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Mark,
You write “expect the Assembly believed, rightly so, that though consistency required the approval of same-sex marriage, a vote to do this would have euthanized the PCUSA immediately.”
I believe that is correct. I see the move as their response to realizing the temperature for the pot of water was being turned up too quickly and the frogs were going to start jumping out. They realized they needed to turn things up more slowly—wait until next GA. The question is, will we wake up to things or not?
July 9th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
To my seminary Greek (adjunct) professor! (and just about my favorite professor I had)at SFTS/SC.
To quote you, “Then again, you may wonder why any of us are sticking around in a denomination that has strayed so far from biblical teaching.”
I think I’m likely to lose a bunch of people over this one. My main prayer for them, as a pastor, is that they will go to church somewhere. I can’t help but think that the PC(USA) is grinding down to a well earned end.
I too shall be using your writings at our special called session meeting next week. My elders, to put it mildly, are livid. I pray we can get over the livid part and just be faithful to Christ, which this G.A. was not.
Thank you and God bless you
Chris Enoch
Third Presbtyerian Church
Uniontown, PA
July 10th, 2008 at 10:48 am
It is clear that many PCUSA pastors and their church members will be facing a major decision in the coming months. I speak from the experience of going through such a decision as a lay person a number of years ago. Through much prayer the pastors, staff and majority of the church membership decided to break away from our particular denomination. Almost immediately, the assets (building, vehicles, etc) were seized - with the pastors and staff locked out of the building. This was anticipated as we had already secured a faility to begin meeting in. Within a week of this decision the ‘new’ church was meeting - some 700 strong, and the new, exciting journey began. There were some members who stayed with the old church - which brought in a new pastor and continued to exists for another 5 plus years before it closed its doors and sold the building. Our new church contiues to thrive - bought a building, started a school, and has seen God do incredible things in the lives of its members as well as the community they serve. Please understand, the road was hard, it caused a lot of anguish, broken relationships(particularly with the older members of the church, and a lot of sacrifices were made especially by the pastors and staff. But I know the pastors and members that made the decision would do it again. It was the right decision based on what we felt and understood God would have us do. In the final analysis, when all arguments were made and discussions had, it came down to being obedient to the word of God as the ultimate authority. No twists, no compromises, no enlightened interpretations. Simply, this is what God’s word says - we must be obedient. God has blessed us as a result. I pray for all the pastors and members of PCUSA churches that they will seek to be obedient. Nothing more and nothing less!
July 10th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Smithson: Thanks for this story. As you can well imagine, it’s hard for those of us who associate our churches with property to think of leaving it, especially when it was built with such love and commitment. Some have argued that to surrender the property is poor stewardship of God’s gifts. But I think your story needs to be heard as well. Of course I think the PCUSA should let congregations leave with their property, no matter what their theological convictions. When the strings that keep us together are legal and financial and material, we’ve already lost our unity in Christ.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:43 am
“Spin is crouching at the door.” BRILLIANT!
July 14th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
um, sorry. it’s me again. I went to the PCUSA website and checked their soial issue stands. It seems to me from the quote below they are with the bible. For all the infomation you provided, why are they not posted on their official website? (i am not trying to offend you, i am just trying to get a level picture from both sides)
[Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.] PCUSA social issue belief
Thank you. and God bless
July 30th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Love to hear you fundies whine!