August 30, 2005
Analysis by John Filiatreau

CHICAGO – The report of the Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church stands or falls on the group's proposed "authoritative interpretation" (AI) of section G-6.0108a of The Book of Order – and whether or not it opens a "back door" to the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians.

The 20-member group made most of its decisions by consensus, conducted its most sensitive discussions behind closed doors, and unveiled its report essentially as a fait accompli. Over four years, its members barely acknowledged in public the discord, divisiveness and charges of sexual impurity that it was impaneled to address.

As soon as the report was made public, however, Presbyterians both liberal and conservative started "spinning" it. Interestingly, left and right spun it the same way, suggesting – liberals with satisfaction, conservatives with horror – that it would open the door to the ordination of gays and lesbians in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

This is exactly what the task force members feared – that most Presbyterians would skip past the "theological reflection" portion that opens the report; pay little attention to the section describing the group's own "transforming" experience; go right to recommendations, looking to take offense; and skip the first and most important one – that the church's unity be preserved at all costs – to the fifth, the AI, the one that most directly addresses the hot-button issue of homosexuality and church office.

What the task force recommends is a thoughtful, open-minded effort to understand what the document actually says and what the authoritative interpretation would do. It begins with a review of the relevant portions of The Book of Order, the church's constitution.

Here's what G-6.0108a says: "It is necessary to the integrity and health of the church that the persons who serve in it as officers shall adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government. So far as may be possible without serious departure from those standards, without infringing on the rights and views of others, and without obstructing the constitutional governance of the church, freedom of conscience with respect to the interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained."

The proposed "authoritative interpretation" says:

(1) The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government in The Book of Order set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation.

(2) These standards are determined by the whole church, after careful study of scripture and theology, solely by the constitutional process of approval by the General Assembly with the ratification of the presbyteries. These standards may be interpreted by the General Assembly and its Permanent Judicial Commission.

(3) Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards to those elected to office. These determinations include:

a. Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office,

b. Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of The Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation.

(4) Whether the ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully and deliberately in deciding to ordain a candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing bodies.

(5) All parties should endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another's decisions, according the presumption of wisdom to ordaining/installing bodies in examining candidates and to the General Assembly, with presbyteries' approval, in setting standards.

In its rationale for the AI, the task force says it "would restore a greater degree of both rigor and flexibility in ordination decisions ... by clarifying provisions of G-6.0108 that stem from long-established principles of Presbyterian polity."

Among those principles, it specifies:

1) "Acting on their own, local governing bodies cannot set their own standards or set aside the church's standards."

2) "Ordaining and installing bodies are empowered and duty-bound to apply the church's standards. ... This responsibility includes determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether officers-elect adhere to essential and necessary articles of doctrine, discipline and government."

3) "Higher governing bodies oversee the decisions of lower ones. Ordaining and installing bodies determine fitness for office."

The rationale says, "Ordaining bodies may not dispense with the church's standards or promulgate their own. G-6.0108 also requires the application of the standards with integrity. It insures freedom of conscience in interpretation of scripture within certain bounds ... and makes an important distinction between ‘standards' and ‘essentials.'"

A key sentence from the rationale:

"Standards are aspirational in character. No one lives up to them perfectly (for this reason, G-6.0108 permits ‘departures' from standards that are not deemed essential). Essentials, by the terms of G-6.0108b ... are those matters of faith and polity that the ... governing body discerns are indispensable for ordained service. Essential doctrines are those that are required for a person's life to fall within the bounds of Reformed understandings of Christian discipleship."

Part of the rationale originally read: "Though current practices vary from session to session and presbytery to presbytery, a lack of rigor in examinations is often reported. The authoritative interpretation lifts up the obligation of the ordaining or installing body to apply standards and make determinations about essentials."

In the course of its final deliberations, the task force amended that paragraph to read:

"Though current practice varies from session to session and presbytery to presbytery, it is often reported that examinations lack rigor by not fully investigating the scope of each officer-elect's beliefs, practices, gifts, willingness to uphold church governance, and scruples. The authoritative interpretation lifts up the obligation of the ordaining or installing body to gain the broadest vision of each candidate's faith, manner of life and promise."

The rationale further notes that the proposed AI "also lifts up a feature of G-6.0108 that is grounded in history but has fallen out of current practice. G-6.0108 puts ‘faith and polity' – belief and behavior – on an equal footing, as they were in 1729, when scruples were permitted in matters of ‘doctrine, discipline and government."

"Over time," the report says, "an imbalance has developed, with flexibility afforded in matters of doctrine and strict compliance required on all points of conduct and polity. By implication, this confers greater authority on the ‘Form of Government' than on the confessions and Scripture they interpret. The proposed authoritative interpretation restores the balance, grounded firmly in the Reformed theological insight that faith and action are inextricably related. Faith is not only mental assent but also a pattern of life lived in the presence of God. The test and fruit of faith are change of heart and amendment of life."

A section of the rationale says explicitly: "It is not the intention of this proposed authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 to change existing ordination standards, including the standards of G-6.0106b, which was added to the Constitution in 1997, and authoritative interpretations addressing its concerns. The task force was not asked to adjudicate the issues named in its mandate, including the questions about sexuality and ordination that are the focus of G-6.0106b. Rather, the task force was instructed to propose ways for the church to live faithfully while dealing with those issues. The task force recognizes that the debate over G-6.0106b may continue for many years. The authoritative interpretation the task force proposes is designed to help the church maintain peace, unity, and faithfulness to scriptural and theological principles while that debate continues."

(Critics of the task force may find meaning in the change of the rubric, "peace, unity and purity" in that last sentence to "peace, unity, and faithfulness to scriptural and theological principles," when it is specifically about purity that they are most concerned.)

Here is what G-6.0106b says:

"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."

(W-4.9001 says: "Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith.")

It is hard to say how the task force arrived at its decisions and negotiated the niceties of language, because virtually all its deliberations touching upon ordination and sexuality were closed to the press and public.

As many representatives of the church press groused as they milled about in the hallways outside the task force's meeting rooms, the process was rather like the proverbial "black box": You could see what went in (historic documents, academic papers, Bible study, prayer, worship) and what came out (the report, and "resources" for other groups to use in their deliberations), but what went on inside the box is a mystery. The members of the task force did not indulge in "ex-parte," private conversations with reporters, apparently having "covenanted" together to refrain from doing so.

After the release of the report, however, members of the secular press began reporting that task force members had said that the proposed authoritative interpretation created enough "wiggle room" to permit local governing bodies to ordain non-chaste gays and lesbians. If the reports are true (a Washington Post reporter said he had two different sources, both task force members, for this information), it looks as if some members are guilty of a breach of the covenant.

It also looks like an inaccurate report of what really happened.

If the authoritative interpretation were approved:

G-6.0106b would remain in the church Constitution, meaning that the only persons qualified for church office would be unmarried people who refrain from sex and married people who are sexually faithful – just as is the case now. At this point, there is no new "wiggle room" making possible the ordination of sexually active single people, gay or straight, or of adulterous men and women, married or single.

There is no provision of Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) polity that sanctions "marriage" rites involving same-sex partners orpermits PC(USA) ministers to bless such unions or characterize them as "marriage."

The AI would not create a "local option" situation in which ordaining bodies would be free to impose radically different standards for ordination – for example, allowing one presbytery to accept a sexually active gay or lesbian while another disqualifies all such persons.

Examining committees could not take refuge in a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, simply declining to question candidates about sexual practice (reportedly the de-facto practice in some presbyteries); the AI would require them to probe into every officer-elect's sexual ethics and practices, without exception.

The report says the proposed AI "will not be effective ... unless subsection (5) of the proposed authoritative interpretation is taken with utmost seriousness: All parties must outdo one another in honoring the decisions of other bodies, presuming that other governing bodies have employed their best wisdom and sincerely sought the Spirit's guidance in all their deliberations." (This is a reference to the Book of Romans, in which Paul urges early Christians to "outdo one another in love.")

The task force has gone to great pains in the report to say what the authoritative interpretation would not do:

"It does not override (an ordaining/installing body's) power to judge which matters are essential and whether any departure from non-essentials is sufficiently serious that a candidate will not be ordained or installed."

"The authoritative interpretation ... would continue to ensure that an ordaining body could not be forced to ordain a person whose faith or manner of life it deems to constitute a departure from essentials of Reformed faith and practice."

"Ordaining/installing bodies may not ignore any existing churchwide standards or adopt additional standards to be imposed on all candidates."

"It is not designed to settle a particular issue but to clarify the common framework within which all ordination decisions are made. ... Standards may not be compromised merely because they are unpopular in a particular locale."

"No elements of the proposed authoritative interpretation are new ... (but) represent a re-emphasis of traditional principles that ... have been held in constructive balance and tension in the past."

"Officers-elect must comply with essentials of polity and practice as well as faith." (As one member remarked during a public hearing last week, the AI applies not only to essentials of faith, but also to "the behavior that flows from it.")

"The purpose of discernment ... is not to minimize critical issues in order to get on to other matters, much less to make life more pleasant. The purpose, rather, is to know, in our very being as a church, the peace, unity, and purity that have been given to us in Jesus Christ, and to show that peace, unity, and purity to the world we have been commissioned to teach and serve."

"To be one is not to say that we will be the same, that we will all agree, that there will be no conflict."

"Some will be disappointed that we have not adjudicated the controversial issues of the moment. ... We have understood our mandate to be broader and farther-reaching: to seek ways for the church to live the gospel joyfully and productively amid inevitable disagreement."

In a brief, concluding section of the report, optimistically headed "The Final Word," the task force writes:

"On the night before he died, in the longest prayer recorded in the Gospels, Jesus prayed for us, the church of the future, lifting our names and our troubled church before God. ... And chief among his petitions in our behalf was his prayer that we ‘may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. ... By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.' (John 17:21; John 13:35). ...

"Even as we differ and even as we contend with one another, Jesus prays that we all may be one, that we might love one another despite many differences that threaten to divide us. ...

"What besides the mystery of divine love could give us the capacity to love those whose goals and views differ from, even contradict, our own?"

Presbyterian News Service