National Capital overture 01-56: issues
still unanswered
How can we keep our Book of Order consistent yet
flexible?
by Gene TeSelle
[7-7-01]
One of the unfinished matters sent to the 213th General Assembly was
Overture 01-56 from National Capital, asking the Assembly to direct the
Committee on the Office of the General Assembly (COGA) to form a task
force to study consistency (and inconsistency!) in the constitution and
the effectiveness of procedures to ensure that amendments do not create
new inconsistencies.
One example, although it is by no means the only one, is that G-
6.0106b, the "fidelity and chastity" amendment, created an
inconsistency with G-5.0202, which says that "an active member is
entitled to all the rights and privileges of the church," including
voting and holding office. Yet the amendment was adopted, raising
questions about our commitment to, and our procedures regarding,
consistency.
The remedy sought by the overture seems to be a relatively simple one.
When actions related to the Constitution are presented to the Assembly
for a vote, there should be advice concerning potential conflicts;
similarly, when proposed amendments are presented to the presbyteries,
they should be accompanied by advice along these lines. Without these,
the presbytery argued, the votes of these bodies would be comparable to
a civic body voting on an important land use or zoning matter without
any environmental impact statement.
The COGA advised disapproval, on the grounds that the Advisory Committee
on the Constitution (ACC) already has the responsibility to provide
advice on proposed amendments and does give such advice at every stage
of the deliberations of each General Assembly. The ACC does indeed give
such advice, often catching contradictions of which others have been
unaware. But of course the time at the Assembly is short, now that
committees meet for only two days and the plenary sessions last for
parts of four days. In addition, the ACC is advisory in character. Its
advice has probably been ignored or overridden numerous times, with the
result that more contradictions enter the Book of Order and the policies
of the General Assembly. National Capital was trying to open up a larger
set of issues, therefore, asking whether an important problem is being
dealt with adequately through our current structure.
National Capital Presbytery has been concerned about this set of issues
for some time. They sent an overture to the Syracuse Assembly in 1997 to
review the ACC and limits its powers; this was the result of their
experience at the Albuquerque Assembly of 1996, when the ACC's overly
assertive role in the Polity Committee was, they felt, obnoxious. They
requested that the Stated Clerk appoint a task force to review the
situation and report back; one of their goals was that the ACC be
limited to the role it had at reunion. One of those who spoke against it
was Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick. While he acknowledged that the ACC
has at times run rough over committees, the Polity Committee voted to
refer these concerns to the ACC for their review, and nothing happened.
Clearly there are questions at several different levels.
One has to do with the effectiveness of the ACC and its relationship
with the Stated Clerk. Old-timers from the UPCUSA remember the days when
Eugene Carson Blake and William Thompson issued definitive opinions on
their own (although Thompson later admitted he was mistaken in his
directive on ordination of gays and lesbians). The ACC was organized as
part of the process of reunion in 1983, and it played a useful role in
blending two different traditions. Now some are asking whether it has
outlived its usefulness. How much does it cost the church each year? How
much does it consult with the Stated Clerk and with the Department of
Constitutional Services? What happens when these officials and the ACC
have conflicting opinions? And if the present system is not working,
what might be more effective?
Another level of questions involves how many contradictions there are in
the Book of Order. Surely "Amendment B" is not the only one.
Inconsistency is probably in the nature of laws. The U.S. Code, too, is
full of contradictions; but we have Supreme Court decisions and law
review articles and other ways of giving them some kind of structure, so
that some principles clearly "trump" other ones. In the
Presbyterian Church, we have the anomaly that the Constitution is
interpreted by both the Permanent Judicial Commission and the General
Assembly, tempting advocates on all sides of an issue to try for a
majority to reverse the prevailing interpretation.
At the most comprehensive level, there is the question what to do about
the inevitable inconsistencies in the Book of Order. Some of us may be
content if governing bodies and PJCs just manage to keep muddling
through somehow. Some have even suggested that consistency is not a
desirable goal. There are new trends in management, for example, that
encourage us to "embrace chaos," and we live with
inconsistencies all the time, especially when we go from one city to
another and one state to another, or shift our focus from state to
federal law.
The alternative, of course, is to seek a looser-textured Book of Order.
The time seems to be ripe for this. Already we have clarified the Book
of Order by differentiating "shall" from "may"
provisions. The 213th General Assembly has just voted to send a shorter
version of chapter 14 to the presbyteries for approval. Stated Clerk
Clifton Kirkpatrick and GAC Executive Director John Detterick told the
213th General Assembly that the "regulatory" approach is not
working and championed the "more excellent way" of love,
mutual forbearance, reliance on an ethos of cooperation rather than
constant wrangling over amendments to the Book of Order.
Obviously any form of government needs some degree of standardization in
the processes that are followed, especially when ordained persons shift
from one presbytery to another. At the same time its provisions must be
malleable, especially in light of the responsibility of governing bodies
to make many important judgments, including those involving ordination,
call, and installation. Those judgments inevitably vary from one
governing body to another; with or without G-6.0106b, it has always been
true that an elder or minister ordained in one place may be refused call
and installation in another place. Similarly the decisions of Permanent
Judicial Commissions may vary, and there are some who suggest that these
should be appealed only when a synod-wide or church-wide issue is at
stake, or when the appellant is contesting the procedures, not the
substantive judgment, of the PJC.
Perspective on these matters is offered by the paper "Historic
Principles, Conscience and Church Government," prepared by a joint
committee at Reunion and adopted by the 1983 Assembly. It goes through
Presbyterian history from the 1729 Adopting Act on. (Curiously it does
not say much about the fundamentalist controversy and the Auburn
Affirmation, whose main points were affirmed by the Theological
Commission of 1924 and the General Assembly of 1925.) But it pays much
attention to the Historic Principles of Church Government, including
their recognition of conscience and their call for "mutual
forbearance."
But then, in its closing pages, it highlights a major anomaly -- without
criticizing it. The paper points out that we acknowledge the complexity
of the Book of Confessions and therefore permit diversity in theological
beliefs. But when the Historic Principles say "a majority shall
govern" (G-1.0400), they require uniformity in practice. One can
argue and campaign for changes, but one's actions must conform with
current church law. The paper goes on to point out that, if there are
changes in the Book of Order after a person makes ordination and
installation vows, and if that person cannot in conscience submit to the
new provisions, then that person must, as the 1758 reunion phrased it,
"peaceably withdraw from our Communion, without attempting to make
any Schism" -- must, in other words, "take that conscience
elsewhere."
The policy is problematical on several grounds.
1. It sets the Book of Order on a collision course with freedom of
conscience. Currently the major issue has to do with sessions or
presbyteries that cannot accept G-6.0106b on the grounds that it is
incompatible with the basic message of Scripture and with their
responsibility to discern the gifts needed for church office. But there
are many who remember the Kenyon case two decades ago. Asked whether he
would participate in the ordination or installation of a woman, he said
that he could not, although he had no difficulty serving with women
elders. Ever since this ruling was made it has troubled many people
because of the line it drew against freedom of conscience, clearly based
in this case, as in most other such cases, on an interpretation of
Scriptural authority. This could be the appropriate time to revisit the
Kenyon case and others like it.
2. The principle that "a majority shall govern" has led to
a "majority takes all" mentality that makes us lurch from one
majority vote in the General Assembly to another, one amendment to
another, and "amendment fatigue" and growing disgust in the
presbyteries.
Majority government need not mean uniformity. Our representative
government already gives considerable freedom to "lower"
governing bodies. General Assembly rules and policies are not those of
presbyteries or sessions unless they are freely adopted. There are
provisions for exceptions and waivers in several areas, including the
election of women elders and the "relief of conscience"
provision for those opposed to abortion. Perhaps these modes of
acknowledging pluralism in our church should be extended even further.
3. The Reformed tradition (unlike the Catholic and Anglican
traditions) has traditionally insisted that faith is more important than
order, since order is a matter of human arrangements appropriate to
the needs of the situation. Our practice, however, is the exact opposite
of this. We allow considerable diversity in the interpretation of
Scripture and in theological opinions, as long as there is
acknowledgment of the authority of Scripture and the "essential
tenets" of the Book of Confessions. Yet we expect conformity with
the Book of Order in all details, even when there are subtle issues of
discernment, as in ordination, and different people can come, in good
conscience, to different conclusions about a number of matters affecting
polity.
During the deliberations of the 213th General Assembly, many speakers
pointed out that it is more important that a principle live than that it
be written (Rev. James Hudnut-Beumler);
that we cannot expect law and litigation to accomplish what only justice
and love can do (Elder Cheryl Raine); that we can never make enough laws
to overcome our fears, but that God gives a Spirit of love, not of fear
(Rev. Ann Graham-Johnson). Perhaps one important role for the new
theological task force is to help us transform our approach to the Book
of Order to be more compatible with our own doctrinal principles.
