Alternatives to G-6.0106b
--
four ways to deal with the "impasse"
by Doug King
[5-9-01]
The various overtures dealing with G-6.0106b present
four basic options for dealing with this restriction on ministries, in
the hope of resolving the virtually even division it has caused in our
church.
Overture 01-08, from the Presbytery of New York City,
seems to offer the most promising step toward a more just and inclusive
church, while providing also for greater freedom of conscience for all
in the church - both those who find the ordination of gay and lesbian
people objectionable, and those who believe it is imperative. Overture 8
would not only remove B from the Book
of Order (which is also sought in various ways by Ovts.
6,12,14,19, 22, 29 and various concurrences), but would clean the slate
of "definitive guidance" and other anti-gay prohibitions going
back to before 1978.
While this approach seems to be the most far-reaching in its provisions,
that does not mean it can be considered "extreme." While it
removes the ban on ordination for anyone involved in anything called sin
in the Book of Confessions, it does not require any governing
body to ordain any person against that body's informed and prayerful
judgment. In this way, it and the other overtures that would open the
church to the calls of homosexual candidates would be different from the
rules that mandate ordination of women to all offices in the church. No
candidate would be judged, as now, primarily on the basis of sexual
orientation, and some governing bodies might choose to continue to deny
the gifts of these candidates. (For more on this approach, see page 5.)
The second approach is commonly termed "local option,"
but in fact it restores the proper role of the presbytery as the
original jurisdiction for ministerial calls. The determination of the
suitability of a candidate is in every other respect entrusted to the
local presbytery, and allegations that this approaches
"congregationalism" would still fall wide of the mark.
Examples of this approach are overtures 12 and
22. In all of these
overtures it is also well worth reading the rationales; in 12 the stress
on mutual forbearance is both Biblical and constitutional.
A third approach, seen in Overture
9's call for an undetermined time of
"churchwide discernment" and Overture
33's call for a
four year "Special Committee to investigate the causes of unrest in
the church," are wishful calls for a continuation of the
"sabbatical" on constitutional amendments of the past two
years. Overture 33's language invokes that of the Special Committee of
1925, although at that time the 5 fundamentals were a recent
pseudo-confession, while in our current situation we have 25 years of
analysis, debate and gradual movement of the church toward a more
tolerant position. Whether these overtures would make conflict avoidance
into a model for church leadership is a question - and a concern.
Unfortunately, we have seen that voluntary calls for a suspension of
judicial cases (as in Overture 33) have been ineffectual. Actually, we
have seen the judicial task force of the Presbyterian Coalition sponsor
four cases designed to coerce churches and presbyteries into conformity
with Amendment B, raising the specter of church courts doing
inquisitions into the sexual practice of candidates. These cases show
that a determined literal-minded minority can require any church to ask
intrusive questions of all candidates for ordained office - and some
believe it is every church's duty to do so. Still, while overtures 9 and
33 would attempt to discourage these distrustful activities, they would
not rule them out.
The fourth approach in overtures 27 and
28 (Santa Fe) and number
00-48
from Hudson River (referred from last year), focus on the
freedom of Christian conscience.
All of the overtures note that affirming the freedom of conscience is an
honored and vital part of the Reformed tradition (C-6.109 and G-1.0301).
The right of conscience does not mean simply the right to dissent from
what is decided by colleagues in ministry; conscience is understood
always to be informed by the Holy Spirit through prayer, Scripture, the
Confessions, and mutual discussion, and when conscience is formed in
this responsible way it is respected in our tradition.
For a discussion of John Calvin's
view of freedom of conscience, click
here.
Overtures 01-27, 01-28, and 00-48, would provide the possibility of
waivers for those persons and governing bodies who believe in conscience
that they must act in ways allegedly prohibited by the Book of Order.
The idea of waivers deserves careful examination, as it is rooted in our
tradition, which allowed ministers to declare "scruples" in
dissenting from non-essentials in the Westminster Confession of Faith,
beginning in 1729.
One difficulty with this approach is pointed out in the statement on
Historic Principles, Conscience and Church Government, adopted by the
195th General Assembly at the time of Reunion. It notes that
"polity often requires compliance in behavior, whereas the
confessional standards may not." The discussion concludes that
church officers have freedom of conscience in their "beliefs or
opinions," but that "ultimately [they] must conform their
actions ... to the church's practice in those areas where the church has
determined that uniformity is necessary or desirable." (For more on
the "freedom of conscience" overtures, click
here.)
Each of these four possibilities offers hope for progress through the
tensions and dilemmas with which we have struggled for so long - and
each presents some problems as well. We pray that the Assembly's actions
will move us along the path toward a more healthy, more just, more
inclusive church, confident that God's grace invites all of us to share
in the journey of faith, and that God's gifts given to any person are to
be celebrated, respected, and used for the upbuilding of Christ's body
and the service of God's world.
