Amendment 01-A:
A Way to Respect our Tradition, and to Restore
Honesty and Conscience
by Douglas Nave
The author is an attorney, a trustee of Fifth Avenue
Presbyterian Church in New York, and served as Overture Advocate for
Overture 01-08, from the Presbytery of New York City, which formed the
basis of Amendment 01-A.
His discussion is in four parts:
I. Amendment A would not compromise our
long-established standards
for ordained service: that candidates for ordination must be
Christian, competent, collegial, and committed.
II. This amendment would restore proper authority
for ordination to local governing bodies.
III. To compare the ordination of gay and
lesbian persons to the ordination of
women is inaccurate; Amendment A removes a prohibition, but does
not institute any new requirement, as did the decision of the UPCUSA
to require all congregations and presbyteries to be willing to ordain
women.
IV. Looking "back
to the future," Amendment A would not place the Presbyterian
Church in a new situation, but would restore both honesty and respect
for the freedom of conscience to our life as a Christian community.
As we deliberate over ratification of Amendment 01-A,
it is helpful to keep clearly in mind what our standards for ordination
are, who has the authority to apply them, and where we are going with
the proposed reform.
I. Standards
for Ordained Service
We generally require that our ordained leaders satisfy standards falling
in four overall categories.
Christian: First, they must be
"persons of strong faith, dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus
Christ as Savior and Lord" -- in other words, they must be
genuinely and steadfastly Christian (G-6.0106a, G-14.0207a-d,
G-14.0405b(1)-(4)). It is under this standard that questions whether a
person's beliefs depart from an "essential" of the Reformed
faith generally arise.
It seems clear that our position on homosexual
relations does not constitute an "essential" of Reformed faith
and polity. Sexual practice simply does not have equal dignity with the
core doctrines of our faith -- the existence of a Triune God, the
Incarnation, salvation by grace through faith, and acceptance of
Scripture as the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ. Nor
do the central affirmations of our Reformed tradition (G-2.0500) address
sexual practice. In the 1920s, General Assembly held that our ministers
may be in good standing even if they disagree about things like the
Virgin birth, the miracles of Christ, bodily resurrection,
substitutionary atonement, and the inerrancy of Scripture. And we have,
over time, reformed our traditional understandings of gender and
sexuality to free women from silence and subordination in church, to
recognize that sometimes marriage after divorce may be appropriate, to
permit interracial marriage, and to acknowledge that a homosexual
orientation alone is not sinful.
In light of all this, it seems clear that one's
position on homosexual practice does not constitute an
"essential" of the faith.
Competent: Ordained leaders also must
be competent -- they must have the "necessary gifts and abilities,
natural and acquired" (G-6.0106a) for the tasks at hand. Thus,
persons wishing to become ministers must be educated in an accredited
theological institution and pass Presbytery examination on the Bible,
theology, polity, worship, and the Sacraments (G-14.0310b-e,
G-14.0313a-b, G-14.0402). Elders and deacons may be ordained and
installed only after a period of study and examination by their Session
(G-10.0102l, G-14.0205).
While faithful Presbyterians may disagree about how
particular passages of Scripture are best interpreted, it seems clear
that those favoring ordained service by self-affirming gay and lesbian
people cannot, by virtue of that position, be deemed educationally
deficient. The 213th General Assembly had before it a statement from
over half of the Bible faculty of our seminaries arguing that our
current ordination standards are wrong. That alone is surely sufficient
evidence that there is room for differing views among our ordained
leaders.
Collegial: Our leaders must be
committed to performing their tasks of office in conformity with our
polity and in the spirit of our Presbyterian tradition (G-14.0207e-j,
G-14.0400b(5)-(9)).
The crux of the presentation made by the overture
advocates to the 213th General Assembly was that it is time to return to
principled use of our polity. Freedom of conscience is a bedrock of
Presbyterian tradition that is well-grounded in Scripture (e.g., Jer.
31:31-34; Rom. 14:1-6, 22; 2 Cor. 1:12), enshrined in the Westminster
Confession and our Book of Order (6.109, G-1.0301), and highlighted by
John Calvin in his writings (Institutes III.19). Our Constitution
requires that we show one another mutual forbearance in matters of
conscience (G-1.0305, G-6.0108a). We are urged time and again by the New
Testament writers to avoid needless controversy and division (e.g., Rom.
15:5-7, 1 Cor. 1:10-13, Eph. 4:1-3, Col. 3:12-15, 1 Thess. 5:13, 1 Tim.
2:8, Tit. 3:9-11, Phil. 2:1-5, Heb. 12:14-16, Jas. 2:8-9, 1 Pet. 3:8).
We also reviewed our denomination's history on this
matter: 25 years of debate, with more division now than when we began; a
deeply divided vote by the 1996 General Assembly to adopt
"Amendment B," and an equally divided ratification process in
which 43% of the presbyteries (and 49%of all presbyters) voted against
the proposal; and an explosion of litigation in our denomination as some
seek to evade, and others seek to enforce and expand, the scope of our
prohibitions. One of our most pressing problems today is a lack of
collegiality, and has been for 25 years. One hopes that we will return
to middle ground -- neither requiring nor prohibiting ordained service
by self-affirming gay and lesbian people -- so that we can live together
as a community of faith where the convictions of those on both sides of
this issue are honored.
Committed: Finally, ordained leaders
must have a manner of life that is "a demonstration of the
Christian gospel in the church and in the world," witnessing to the
work of the Holy Spirit and providing an example for others in the
church (G-6.0106a). That standard may be applied so as to exclude or
remove from office persons found guilty of "offenses" like
adultery or deception (D-2.0203, D-12.0100).
This brings us to our current debate. Those who favor
"Amendment B" (G-6.0106b) often believe that self-affirming
gay and lesbian persons are living in unrepentant sin and, therefore,
have a manner of life that is not "a demonstration of the Christian
gospel." Nearly half of our denomination disagrees. How do we
resolve our difference on this point? If we agree that our position on
homosexual practice is not an "essential tenet," we are left
arguing about the interpretation of Scripture on
"non-essentials," and there our Constitution is absolutely
clear -- that insofar as is possible, "freedom of conscience with
respect to the interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained"
(G-6.0108a).
Particular congregations and presbyteries may not be
receptive to ordained leadership by gay and lesbian persons, and may
well choose to ordain and install other persons. However, congregations
and presbyteries who believe that self-affirming gay and lesbian persons
may bring unique and valuable gifts of ministry to their communities
should, in conscience, be free to call and approve those persons. That
is what Amendment 01-A would allow.
II. The Authority of Local
Governing Bodies
It long has been a benchmark of our polity that
Sessions and Presbyteries bear the primary responsibility for
identifying, and determining whether an individual adheres to, the
"essential tenets" of Reformed faith and polity (G-6.0108b).
These are matters much more important than the mere differences of view
involved in our debates about sexual practice. However, even here, we
have seen the wisdom in withholding unnecessary judgments. Centuries of
experience counsel us (i) to establish denominational rules only when we
have a widespread consensus that confirms our true discernment of the
leading of the Holy Spirit; and (ii) to exercise restraint in addressing
abstract matters without the discernment of a local governing body as to
the character and witness of the person bringing that issue to the fore.
As far back as 1927, the Swearingen Commission,
appointed to address unrest over ordination standards, appealed to our
first written form of government:
[B]y the Act of 1729, the decision as
to essential and necessary articles was to be in specific cases. It was
no general authority that might be stated in exact language and applied
rigidly to every case without distinction. It was an authority somewhat
undefined, to be invoked in each particular instance. . . .
It was clearly the intention that this decision as to
essential and necessary articles was to be made after the candidate had
been presented and had declared his beliefs and stated his motives
personally, and after the examining body . . . had had full opportunity
to judge the man himself, as well as abstract questions of doctrine.
One might ask whether the Adopting Act still applies.
We have answered that time and again with a resounding "yes!"
The 1983 Report of the Special Committee on Historic Principles,
Conscience, and Church Government affirmed that the Act of 1729 and
observance of its principles by later generations "reveals the
Presbyterian genius for compromise" (PCUSA Minutes, 1983, at 141,
144). Likewise, the 1993 Report of the Special Committee on the Nature
of the Church and the Practice of Governance looked to the earliest days
of American Presbyterianism for guidance on our polity and practice
today (PCUSA, Minutes, 1993, at 355, 363-70).
Consistent with these reports, all adopted by the
General Assemblies to which they were presented, we long have held that
Presbytery has the primary responsibility to assess individuals' fitness
for ministry. The principle was stated in ringing terms in 1927:
"Licensure of probationers and ordination to the gospel ministry
are the exclusive functions of the Presbytery" (Minutes, 1927, at
58, 61). Our highest PJC affirmed in 1981 that "the exercise of
Presbytery's primary responsibility in determining the qualifications of
ministers within the framework of our Constitution [i]s subject to
review by a higher judicatory only for the most extraordinary
reasons" (Rankin v. National Capital Union Presbytery, UPCUSA,
1981). Our Book of Order states that Presbytery that has the authority
and responsibility to examine, certify and ordain candidates for
ministry (G-11.0103n-o, G-11.0402, G-14.0402), to find and approve calls
as being in order and for the good of the whole church (G-14.0501b-c,
G-14.0502c, G-14.0507), and to decide whether a minister may labor
within its bounds (G-11.0401).
Assuredly Sessions and Presbyteries must work within
the rules of our Constitution, and cannot ordain or install a person
whom our Constitution disqualifies. But our ordination rules themselves,
even when incorporated into our Constitution, must comport with our
fundamental polity and the theology that undergirds it. An ordination
"standard" that has caused 25 years of division and with which
almost half of our denomination disagrees as a matter of conscience is
no standard at all. Rather, it constitutes a mere usurpation of power by
a slim majority acting in violation of our duty to show one another
mutual forbearance. That is what the 213th General Assembly, I believe,
saw -- that we must return to our bedrock principles, honoring freedom
of conscience and showing one another the mutual forbearance that, by
the grace of God, has enabled us to move forward together for three
hundred years.
III. Lessons from Women's
Ordination
Some who oppose Amendment 01-A have called attention
to the so-called Kenyon case (Maxwell v. Pittsburgh Presbytery, UPCUSA,
1975), which prohibited the ordination of a ministerial candidate who
stated that he would not ordain women as elders. They argue that Kenyon
changed our polity, depriving the Presbyteries of their traditional
authority to determine who should be ordained. This is not correct.
Kenyon addressed a matter on which the UPCUSA had
achieved a consensus so clear that the election and ordination of women
not only was allowed, but in fact was explicitly required by the
Constitution, and could be expected to occur with great frequency. The
Book of Order in effect at that time stated plainly that "[e]very
congregation shall elect persons from among its members . . . giving
fair representation to both the male and female constituency of that
congregation" (UPCUSA Book of Order, Ch. XVII, Sec. 1 (47.01) (1975
ed.)). Mr. Kenyon was denied ordination because he disagreed with a
mandatory provision of the Book of Order, and stated his intention not
to perform actions that his local governing body had approved and that
the Constitution required be a regular part of congregational life.
Some have expressed a different concern, that
Amendment 01-A may become a means of coercing local governing bodies or
ministers who believe that ordinations of self-affirming gay and lesbian
persons are wrong to perform them nevertheless. This overlooks an
absolutely fundamental point: What we're voting on is whether to remove
a prohibition -- not whether to establish a requirement.
General Assembly adopted an overture that would
neither require nor prohibit the ordination of self-affirming gay and
lesbian people. Local governing bodies, applying the standards of
G-6.0106a as faithfully as they can, almost certainly will reach
different conclusions about whether such persons should render ordained
service. Actions taken by one congregation or Presbytery will not be
binding on any other. Likewise, pastors believing that self-affirming
gay and lesbian persons should not be ordained remain free to teach
their convictions and to work for change; our PJCs repeatedly have
upheld presbyteries in welcoming pastors who stated their intention to
continue teaching that women should not be ordained, even after our Book
of Order was amended to require women's ordination ( e.g., Simmons v.
Presbytery of Suwannee, PCUSA, 1985; Huie v. Synod of Southeast, PCUS,
1977).
It is worth emphasizing that Amendment 01-A will not
provide a means for our PJCs to do by fiat what the amending language
does not do directly. A PJC may prevent a Session or Presbytery from
ordaining or installing someone whom our Constitution disqualifies,
since the basis of disqualification is specific and objectively
determinable. However, a PJC cannot require a Session or Presbytery to
ordain or install someone whom that local governing body would rather
not, since the PJC cannot require a lower governing body to reach any
particular decision about the many considerations our Constitution vests
in the discretionary assessment of the ordaining or installing body.
Perhaps our pastors on rare occasion may find themselves called upon to
ordain and install persons whom they would rather not. However,
Amendment 01-A is unlikely to generate new occasions of this nature. Our
presbyteries assumedly have sufficient ministerial resources -- in the
majority that must approve each ministerial call and admission to
membership -- not to include an unwilling pastor on commissions
appointed for services of ordination or installation. Likewise, pastors
are unlikely to have issues of conscience in the ordination and
installation of lay church officers -- if only because self-affirming
gay and lesbian people are unlikely to affiliate with congregations
whose leadership makes them feel unwelcome in the first place. A pastor
also has significant influence, through teaching, informal guidance, and
participation on Session, in a congregation's selection of officers. And
we are not dealing here with a situation like Kenyon, where every
service of ordination necessarily must include a number of persons to
whom the pastor objects. In the rare case where a pastor may be at odds
with the congregation's choice of a gay or lesbian officer, our Book of
Order provides an "escape valve," requiring only that there be
a "minister presiding" -- possibly someone invited especially
for the occasion -- at the service of ordination and installation
(G-14.0206-.0207).
IV. Back
to the Future
Some have suggested that Amendment 01-A constitutes
new legislation that would not return us to pre-'78 ordination standards
but would, in fact, reverse them. That is not correct.
Our pre-1978 standards did not prohibit the ordination
of self-affirming gay and lesbian persons. In responding to the original
overtures that sparked this debate, the 1976 General Assembly expressly
stated that "we reaffirm the right of the Presbytery to take what
action it deems best, consistent with the Book of Order," and it
declined to call such ordinations improper, stating only that it would
"appear" to be "injudicious" for Presbytery to
proceed with such ordinations given then-current understandings of
homosexuality (UPCUSA Minutes, 1976, at 111-12). The 1978 General
Assembly, likewise, issued only a modestly-styled "policy statement
and recommendations" on the matter (UPCUSA Minutes, 1978, at 261).
It was far from clear, when that Assembly acted, whether its decision
would be binding on the presbyteries, and much of the ensuing debate
concerned whether that statement violated the presbyteries' right to
ratify or decline what amounted to a constitutional amendment.
Subsequent Assemblies and PJCs consistently have cited the 1978 action
as the foundation for our debates, and have not referred to any earlier
rule which, had it existed, surely would have been cited at length.
Before 1978, many Presbyteries and Sessions may have
decided not to ordain or install self-affirming gay and lesbian people.
However, they did so through their own discernment and in the freedom to
follow their conscience -- not under the compulsion of a denominational
rule. That is precisely the state to which I and other overture
advocates earnestly hope we will return now. Passage of Amendment 01-A
may create one difference with the situation prior to 1978. I believe
that in 1978/79, when we prohibited ordained service by
"self-affirming, practicing homosexuals," the real issue was
not "practicing" -- what we have focused on more recently as a
question about unrepentant sin -- but "self-affirmation."
Before 1978/79, we had a "don't ask, don't tell" denomination.
As our society became more honest about sexual orientation and
expression, many in our church felt that we needed to be more honest
too.
We always have had non-celibate homosexual persons in
leadership -- on our Sessions and Boards of Deacons, in our music
ministries, in our Sunday schools, in our executive offices and, yes, in
our pulpits. If that were not already obvious to those who knew and
worked with the many wonderful gay and lesbian persons who have served
our church in the past, the record has been made plain by the testimony
of the numerous persons, both serving and honorably retired, who have
come forward in recent years as we debated this issue.
So what were the Presbyteries of New York City and the
Palisades asking for, when they overtured the 1976 General Assembly for
"definitive guidance"? I don't believe they were asking for
"permission" to proceed -- rather, I believe they were asking
for honesty.
If we adopt Amendment 01-A, we will not be embracing
homosexuality, but honesty. We will be agreeing to disagree, and our
ministers will remain free to teach as their consciences dictate they
must. We will be endorsing freedom of conscience for all faithful
Presbyterians, honoring our duty to show one another mutual forbearance
in matters of genuine difference. We will be reaffirming our continuing
openness to possible reform as all of us search diligently for where the
Holy Spirit calls us today. And we will be renewing our commitment to
the community that works for reconciliation and witnesses to the world
about the reconciling power of Christ.
