"Scruples" disallowed

PJC says only a constitutional amendment will change things

from Doug King, Witherspoon WebWeaver   [2-16-08]

Specifically this means that any candidate for ordination as a minister or elder must obey the requirement of “fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness,” which was added to the Book of Order as provision G-6.0106b.

The ruling of the GA PJC, issued on February 11, 2008, actually deals with three cases, all of which touch on the issue of sexuality and ordination.

The action of the 2006 General Assembly left it up to the discernment of the ordaining body (the session for elders, the presbytery for ministers) as to whether the ordination requirement must be regarded as “essential,” and therefore an absolute requirement, or might be seen as not essential, and therefore might be set aside in the case of a particular individual.

This PJC ruling describes the “fidelity and chastity” provision as “a mandatory standard that cannot be waived.” Further, it makes clear that while candidates may be permitted to “depart” from ordination standards related to belief, they cannot be allowed the same freedom of conscience with regard to behavior.

And it upheld language from a prior Synod of the Trinity PJC ruling which made a distinction between allowing departures from the church’s standards related to belief – but not departures related to behavior.

Presbyterians committed to a fully open and inclusive church, including its practices of ordination, have differed over the past few years in their strategies for dealing with the essentially exclusionary demands for “fidelity and chastity.” Some have sought a gradual approach to changing practice and the application of ordination standards through action in presbyteries, which others have believes that no real change would happen until the “fidelity and chastity” requirement in G-6.0106b of the Book of Order is totally removed.

The PJC seems to side with the latter approach, especially when it declares: “the fidelity and chastity standard may only be changed by a constitutional amendment. Until that occurs, individual candidates, officers, examining and governing bodies must adhere to it.”

It seems likely that this action will reverse the moves toward a more inclusive church recently taken by two presbyteries: On January 15, San Francisco presbytery voted 167 to 151 to approve as “ready for examination” Lisa Larges, a lesbian who works for the advocacy group, That All May Freely Serve. And on January 26, the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area voted 196 to 79 to restore the ordination of Paul Capetz, a gay seminary professor who voluntarily set aside his ordination in 2000 in protest over the PC(USA)’s ordination standards.

We welcome your comments and additions!
Just send a note.

More on this very important development:

Presbyterian Outlook reports on the PJC action under the headline, “Top court prohibits scrupling fidelity-chastity standard”

The Louisville Courier-Journal headlines its report: “Presbyterian court rules gays can't be ordained”

The Office of the General Assembly has issued an Advisory Opinion on the recent decisions

To summarize the main points in this opinion:

1. Authoritative Interpretations may not change an ordination standard.
2. Governing bodies may not restate, augment, diminish, or define ordination standards.
3. Governing bodies may not waive the G-6.0106b ordination standard.
4. A candidate's actions must conform to the ordination standards.
5. The ordaining body must examine the candidate individually.

Then there is another sentence, which seems to open the door again a crack for departures based on conscience: “The GAPJC also emphasized that each candidate must be examined individually by the examining governing body. Only in this way can the body determine whether any potential departure is a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity.”

The next (and last) sentence of the Advisory Opinion must have been penned by someone with a sense of irony: “To obtain a complete understanding of these decisions, we recommend that readers study all three of the cases: Buescher, et al v. Presbytery of Olympia; Bush, et al v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh; and First Presbyterian Church Session of Washington v. Presbytery of Washington.”

Randall Bush, Wayne Peck, and the Session of East Liberty Presbyterian Church, v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh

Barlow J. Buescher, et al., v. Presbytery of Olympia,

Session of First Presbyterian Church of Washington, et al., v. Presbytery of Washington

From More Light Presbyterians

GAPJC Rules against Authoritative Interpretation of 2006 with regard to life and relationships

The highest judicial court of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC), ruled on February 11 that while a candidate for ordination can express disagreement with or offer a scruple about G-6.0106b on the grounds of theology or conscience, they are still required to comply with the "fidelity in marriage, chastity in singleness" requirement for ordination. The ruling held that candidates for ordination must comply with the sexual behavior standards of the Church.

GAPJC Ruling interferes with call process & does not engender trust

This GAPJC ruling is disappointing because it does not give room for local governing bodies, churches and presbyteries, who know their people best to make thoughtful, informed and faithful decisions about calls to ministry and ordination. This ruling is disappointing because it continues to impose the restrictions of "fidelity in marriage, chastity in singleness" upon the call process. This GAPJC ruling is disappointing because it does not engender trust among us as Christians and the Body of Christ with regard to how individuals and couples express love, live in faithful relationships and create family.

"Fidelity in marriage, chastity in singleness" is not Christian sexual ethics and offers no genuine sexual or relationship standard

It is important to note and come to terms with the fact that the current sexual behavior standard of the Church, "chastity in singleness," does not offer thoughtful guidance on Christian sexual ethics for lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender persons who are single or in faithful relationships; nor does it offer any meaningful guidance to heterosexual single persons. Moreover, let us be honest, the platitude of "fidelity in marriage" fails to offer any genuine support or ethical guidance for married heterosexuals. These so-called sexual behavior standards fail our Church, fail our people, and offer nothing of substance to the larger society in terms of what it means to be in a faithful, loving relationship or sexual ethics for all persons.

Constitutional Change is the only way out

The GAPJC went on to say, “the fidelity and chastity standard may only be changed by a constitutional amendment." More Light Presbyterians has been working to remove this discriminatory church law since its inception, and called for constitutional change immediately following the adoption of this Authoritative Interpretation by the 217th General Assembly in 2006. Because of the passage of Ordination Overtures in several presbyteries, the 218th General Assembly will be able to remove this anti-gay discriminatory ordination policy.

The experiment of G-6.0106b has failed & hurts our Church

The anti-gay discriminatory ordination policy of G-6.0106b of "fidelity in marriage, chastity in singleness" was added to the Book of Order in 1997 It has brought nothing but pain, division and discrimination in our Church. It has worked against the principles and the realities of peace, unity and purity within our Church. It has driven people out and driven people away from our Church. It is a barrier to people knowing that they are children of God, created in the image of God, unconditionally loved by God and welcome in our Church. It is an impediment to faith and grace. It is a scandal to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It's About Time! for Change at the 2008 General Assembly

It's time for this policy and church law to be removed for the sake of the Soul of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Calls for change and seeds of hope await us to San Jose. It's About Time!

with hope and grace,

Michael

Michael J. Adee, M.Div., Ph.D., National Field Organizer, More Light Presbyterians http://www.mlp.org/article.php?story=20080213175432205

A comment from Ray Bagnuolo, who describes himself as an “openly gay Presbyterian minister,” writes this comment:

Dear Friends,

The recent decisions by the GAPJC clarify in bold terms the reasons why no true progress will be made in our denomination for the full inclusion of LGBT folk until G-6.0106b is gone. None of this is surprising.

Maintaining an amendment in our Book of Order that is violent, exclusive, marginalizing, and deeply-flawed – not to mention in opposition to the movement of the Spirit – is unconscionable. Every Christian who has ever understood the risk involved in being a Christian understands that there is no "safe" way to litigate around G-6.0106b. We simply cannot pass new legislation to interpret what should be removed. If the risk in being just is a risk to the unity of the church, then the unity we have achieved is flawed and needs to be changed.

This has been a long and tedious process; LGBT folks and their allies have given their heart and their trust to the multiple processes that have promised hope and justice in our time. We have trusted in groups that were promised to be safe for discussions, only to have them used against us. We have agreed to moratoriums, only to have them violated. We have stood together at Presbytery meetings and General Assemblies to hear ourselves talked about as if we were some errant act of God's creation: not only second class in our citizenship but second class in creation. We have watched friends' lives deeply and unfairly altered by the full weight of the imbalance of power in this church. We have watched fear used to cower the voices that otherwise would speak for themselves.

And through it all, like Lisa [Larges] and Paul [Capetz] and faithful others, we have persisted. We have remained in the church to try and change it with loving-kindness and the encouragement we share for each other, bonded in the love of God we know so well.

With the many overtures and concurrences coming together in a most amazing way, this General Assembly has a different kind of promise. The overtures to restore the language of the Heidelberg Catechism, to remove G-6.0106b from the Book of Order, to the change the language in the Directory for Worship – all these broaden the call we share: to once and for all, reform this Constitution of ours to reflect all of us.

There can be no interpretation of G-6.0106b, the Heidelberg's redacted language, or the Directory for Worship's definition of marriage. All these need to be made clear for all to hear and see, ringing loudly, so all may hear the peal of welcome. We need to change the Constitution, not create ways around it.

If we rely on any task forces or measures to get around what needs to be removed and changed, we will continue to experience the decisions, divisiveness, and the dehumanization that is evidenced in the recent rulings by the GAPJC.

I fully support MLP and others who unflinchingly continue to call for such changes. May they reflect the deep truth that lies in all our hearts, and may we join in that chorus faithfully and with courage.

I look forward to working together with everyone who has hope for this church, on both sides of the aisles and in-between.

There is an inclusive church beyond these changes, with room everyone, and I believe it is up to us to change it.

Peace,

Ray Bagnuolo
Openly Gay Interim Minister, Palisades Presbyterian Church
Palisades, NY

That All May Freely Serve says the PJC decision shows "the necessity for swiftly and finally removing the homophobic and heterosexist policies from the Presbyterian constitution."

In a decision handed down on February 12, 2008,the highest court in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ruled that the controversial ordination standard of fidelity in heterosexual marriage or chastity in singleness is a requirement for all persons in ordained office. The ruling perpetuates the mistaken and destructive prejudice that sexual orientation is a matter of behavior and not identity. Further, the ruling puts a wedge between faith and practice, as though to believe one thing and act differently were not the very definition of hypocrisy. The ruling severely damages movement toward greater flexibility, graciousness, and discernment as put forward by the actions of the last General Assembly.

The decision, however, puts in stark relief the necessity for swiftly and finally removing the homophobic and heterosexist policies from the Presbyterian constitution.

Presbyterians for Renewal celebrated the decision on Wednesday, Feb. 13, under the headline “PC(USA) High Court Rules ‘Fidelity and Chastity’ Standard Remains Binding”

They write that “... in three decisions just issued, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) has ruled that no ordaining body (session or presbytery) has the right to ordain a candidate who is in violation of constitutional standards, including the “Fidelity and Chastity” standard expressed in the Book of Order (G-6.0106b). With these new GAPJC rulings, we can now rest assured that our standards for ordination in the PC(USA) continue to reflect the clear teaching of Scripture and the plain meaning of our constitution.”

And then they say it more briefly: “These recent GAPJC rulings clarify that nothing has changed. ... PFR believes these GAPJC rulings promote the peace, unity and purity of the church.”

We welcome your comments and additions!
Just send a note.

[3-6-08]

From:  Your Candidates and Inquirers for the Ministry of Word and Sacrament who are Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer

This comes to us from Mieke Vandersall of Presbyterian Welcome

Date: March 2008

From: Your Candidates and Inquirers for the Ministry of Word and Sacrament who are Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer

Re: Bush vs. Presbytery of Pittsburgh PJC Ruling Regarding Ordination Standards and G-6.0106b

We, your sisters and brothers in Christ, your colleagues in ministry, faithful members of Presbyterian churches are saddened by the recent ruling of the Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) which singles out the requirement of fidelity in heterosexual marriage and chastity in singleness as an essential tenet of Reformed faith. This ruling contradicts some of the most important work of the Peace Unity and Purity Task Force, which put forward a more gracious and open way for us to live together as the body of Christ in the midst of our differences.

This PJC decision puts a wedge between theology and practice, belief and action, being and doing. It demeans the lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer persons by again reducing our lives to sexual acts. It fails to recognize God's ability to choose whomever God wills to serve the Church. It perpetuates the mythology that sexual orientation is simply a matter of behavior. It says that we are not filled with God's grace.

Our Reformed understanding of Scripture teaches that the way in which we live our lives as responsible, faithful Christians is intimately connected to our faith. Our love, commitment, and indeed our manner of life is an inescapable expression of our faith as we seek to both know God’s will and to live into it. We are filled with the Spirit, a Spirit made manifest in our Christian discipleship and acts of Christian witness: by teaching Sunday School; giving our time, talent and treasure to our congregations; working in soup kitchens; financially supporting ourselves and paying tuition to Presbyterian seminaries; visiting the sick and shut-ins; working for justice; being present with individuals in their last days of life on earth; singing in choirs; tutoring children; yearning to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments; proclaiming the liberating and good news of Jesus Christ, and welcoming and raising new disciples to serve Him.

Many of us have found ourselves in holding patterns, serving in whatever capacities we can create while waiting for the church to open the door to the Holy Spirit and usher us into ordained ministry serving Jesus Christ. Many of us have been removed from the ordination process when we have been honest about the magnificent ways that the Holy Spirit has moved through our lives, calling us out into the world as whole people, burning with the desire to serve Christ. We have been removed because we cannot serve with our whole heart while hiding our sexuality and gender identities. A few of us have been ordained, some of us have been unable to utter the full truth of our lives, and others of us have been in spaces safe enough to disclose our full identities.

We fear that the direct effect of this ruling will be to once again impose upon the ordination process a don't ask, don't tell policy. We are a gospel people, called to proclaim the good news of how God has loved and redeemed us and freed us for joyful service. The good news of Jesus Christ is about witnessing to the fullness in which God has moved in our lives. It is tremendously painful and theologically suspect that our church should find it expedient that we must edit our lives, denying our full humanity which Jesus came to fully redeem, in order to be acceptable candidates for ordination.

We live in hope for the healing of the church. We live in hope that all policies which hinder our voices and witness will be removed. We know that only when this day comes will we experience full participation in the life of this denomination. We live in hope that our sisters and brothers in Christ will know us, in the fullness of how God creates us, and affirm our gifts and call. We live in hope that policy decisions are not made on our backs but that we may be treated with equality and the respect we deserve. We live in hope that we will one day soon serve this church as Ministers of Word and Sacrament who happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer. We pray for that day with all of our strength.