Extra-Constitutional Options: Nullification and Anathematization

If a Biblically and Confessionally Orthodox Presbytery (BACOP) seeks to distance itself clearly from presbyteries that choose to ordain Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) it could take any number of extra-constitutional actions, depending on how the constitutional crisis plays itself out.

One option is to nullify any unbiblical actions with which the BACOP disagrees. Beaver-Butler Presbytery, for example, has already nullified an action of the General Assembly. On July 28, 2009, it declared the following as part of its “Open Theological Declaration to the PC(USA):”

“We will not be governed by the Authoritative Interpretation adopted by the 218th General Assembly because it is constitutionally, biblically, and judicially unsustainable. This interpretation cannot change the plain meaning of the Constitution, which still holds full force and effect in Beaver-Butler Presbytery.”

The full text of the Declaration can be found here:

http://www.layman.org/Files/Theo%20%20Declaration%20Final.pdf

If the language of the current constitution were not to be changed by amendment, but if the GAPJC were to allow congregations and presbyteries to ordain SAPHAs anyway, a BACOP could take a similar sort of action. The BACOP could nullify the acts of governing bodies with which it disagrees, declaring such acts to be of no force or effect within the BACOP’s bounds.

A more extreme alternative would be for the BACOP to anathematize congregations or presbyteries that ordain SAPHAs, declaring those governing bodies no longer to be organizational expressions of the true Church.

Both nullification and anathematization would make it clear that the BACOP is not in any way in agreement with ordinations it understands to be immoral or unconstitutional. Both actions would thus solve the worst of the moral dilemmas caused by local option – that of appearing to approve of the proclamation of a false gospel.

There are, however, many problems with both of these tactics. Anathematization would practically be very difficult – for how would any BACOP know whether another presbytery has in fact ordained a SAPHA? No one wants to condemn someone else based purely on hearsay or gossip, and there would be no meaningful way to conduct hearings on the matter, since the ordination would by definition be outside the BACOP’s jurisdiction.

The main problem with nullification is that it would have little practical effect – after all, the BACOP would have no power actually to undo the actions it would be nullifying. This means that the ordination of SAPHAs would continue within the PCUSA, no matter what any BACOP might say or do. The BACOP would still be legally implicated in those actions, as long as G-9.0103 remains in the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.”

Moreover, given the ability of higher governing bodies to overturn the actions of the governing bodies immediately below them, no extra-constitutional actions are likely to stand. Statements of nullification or anathematization could be, and probably would be, quickly overturned. Such extra-constitutional statements might also encourage Synods to appoint administrative commissions to prevent such irregular actions in the future.