Local Option and the PCUSA (part 1)

So, what's going on with ordination standards in the PCUSA? What is likely to happen at the General Assembly this summer? We cannot doubt that there is a great movement among some in the denomination to provide local option where it comes to ordination standards. Now, to be fair, we have had de facto local option for quite some time. The fact is that self-acknowledged practitioners of homosexual acts (SAPHAs) have already been ordained as ministers and elders within several presbyteries of the PCUSA. But these ordinations have happened in defiance of the clear language found in G-6.0106b of the Book of Order. If the ordination of SAPHAs has been allowed within rogue presbyteries, it is because of a lack of desire to prevent such behavior, not because the constitution of the denomination permits it.

But now those who do not wish to be governed by the polity of the church are attempting to change the constitution so they have no obligation to do so. Put simply, they want sessions and presbyteries to have the constitutional option to ordain SAPHAs. They are thus attacking the constitution in three ways.

Three lines of attack

The first way is the most direct. Ever since the language of G-6.0106b first found its way into the Book of Order, powerful forces have been trying to remove it. This can only be done by the General Assembly proposing an amendment to the constitution, which must then be approved by a majority of the presbyteries. The last such amendment was defeated by only a few votes, and so the Supporters of Local Option (SLOs) are determined to try that again this year. It doesn’t really matter how they word their proposal or what arguments they use to justify it – at the end of the day, the SLOs simply want to allow SAPHAs to be ordained.

The second tactic of the SLOs has been to try to interpret G-6.0106b out of existence. This was the motivating force behind the passage of the PUP report in 2006, and the John Knox overture in 2008. Put simply, both of these interpretations of the constitution state that a person's freedom of conscience allows him or her to opt out of any behavioral requirements prescribed by the Book of Order. These interpretations allow any candidate to declare a "scruple," stating not only that he or she disagrees with the Book of Order or the Book of Confessions on some point of theology or polity, but that he or she will not be bound by part of the church's polity. Such "scrupling" is of course a recipe for constitutional chaos, which is, of course, the intention of the SLOs.

The only remaining impediment to the SLOs being able to interpret G-6.0106b out of existence has been the opposition of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly (GAPJC). In several cases, the GAPJC has upheld the necessity for all candidates and presbyteries to abide by all the requirements found in the constitution. Bush v. Pittsburgh was especially helpful in this regard, clarifying the PUP report adopted by the 217^th General Assembly. Bush made it clear that all ordinands had to abide by all requirements of the constitution, and that presbyteries could not allow candidates to state that they would not live according to behavioral standards such as those found in G-6.0106b. The GAPJC stated, “The freedom of conscience granted in G- 6.0108 allows candidates to express disagreement with the wording or meaning of provisions of the constitution, but does not permit disobedience to those behavioral standards.”

Lately, however, the GAPJC has demonstrated less resolve on this issue. In cases taking place in 2009 which involved the ordinations of SAPHAs Lisa Larges and Paul Capetz, the GAPJC ruled very narrowly, explicitly refusing to say whether it is possible for a candidate to declare ahead of time his or her intention to disobey part of the constitution. More cases concerning the ordination of SAPHAs are currently in the pipeline, including John Knox Presbytery’s recent ordination of Scott Anderson. But if the GAPJC eventually overrules the concept of "scrupling" points of polity, it has already shown that it will do so only with the greatest reluctance.

There is a third method by which the SLOs seek to allow the ordination of SAPHAs: the introduction of an entirely new Form of Government, or nFOG. While this proposed document would leave the language of G-6.0106b in place, it would remove many of the mechanisms that can currently be used to enforce compliance with it. In addition, the nFOG would impose a more sweeping definition of inclusivity on the PCUSA, allowing governing bodies to decide for themselves which groups or categories of people are entitled to constitutional protection. In short, the nFOG would allow presbyteries to require SAPHAs to be eligible to serve in the offices of the church. The conflict between this requirement and G-6.0106b would then be thrown into the permanent judicial commissions or referred to the General Assembly itself for clarification, and who can predict what would happen then?

The SLOs are pressing forward on all these different fronts: the removal of G-6.0106b, the re-interpretation of G-6.0106b either by GA action or by ruling of the GAPJC, and the substitution of an entirely new Form of Government. Only God knows if they will succeed.

Thanks to Bob Davis for beginning a very helpful discussion on the constitutional crisis in the PCUSA (you can see his articles on presbyblog at http://www.presbyblog.com/current/219ga/022210constitutionalcrisis.html

and

http://www.presbyblog.com/current/219ga/022310whattodo.html)

Carmen Fowler has also commented wisely on this subject at
http://www.layman.org/carmensblog/10-02-25/_Presbyterianism_run_amuck.aspx