Stated Clerk

Stated Clerk explains what Amendment A would and would not change

Responding to questions from presbytery stated clerks and executives, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick has issued this note of advice:

July 12, 2001 [posted here on 7-20-01]

Polity Reflection notes reflect the advice of the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly and the Constitutional Services Department of the Office of the General Assembly, but do not constitute rulings or authoritative interpretations.

RE: ACTIONS OF 213TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY (2001) ON G-6.0106 AND ACCOMPANYING AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION

On Friday, June 15, 2001 the 213th General Assembly approved an amended version of Overture 01 08 from the Presbytery of New York City. That action sends to the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative votes a proposed Amendment to G-6.0106a&b. The proposed amendment would add language to G-6.0106a (see below) and would delete G-6.0106b. The Assembly also adopted a new Authoritative Interpretation which has raised a number of questions, and prompted the Department of Constitutional Services to comment.

There are three sources of Constitutional Law for the PC(USA):

Constitutional Amendment

Decisions of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission

Action of the General Assembly when it deliberately interprets the Constitution on the advice of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution.

The 213th General Assembly utilized this third source in adopting the Authoritative Interpretation in answer to Overture 01-08. However, the Assembly conditioned that new Authoritative Interpretation upon the presbyteries approving Amendment A (amending G-6.0106a & b). This is a unique constitutional situation that has given rise to a number of questions among stated clerks and executive presbyters:

1. If the proposed amendment to G-6.0106a&b fails to be approved by a majority of the presbyteries, what will be the status of the 1978 (UPC, 1978, Part I, p. 265) and 1979 (PCUS, Part I, 1979, p. 207) authoritative interpretations and subsequent interpretations which prohibit the ordination of self-affirming, practicing homosexuals?

The proposed amendment makes the issuance of a new authoritative interpretation contingent upon the passage of the proposed amendment to G-6.0106b. Therefore if the proposed amendment to G-6.0106 fails, the 1978 and 1978 authoritative and subsequent interpretations will remain in full force.

Those interpretations (originally identified as definitive guidance) declare that:

"[U]nrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements set forth for ordination." (UPC 1978, Part I, p. 265)

"For the church to ordain a self affirming practicing homosexual person to ministry would be to act in contradiction to its charter and calling of scripture..." (PCUS, 1979, Part I, p. 207)

2. If the proposed amendment is approved by a majority of the presbyteries and the new authoritative interpretation becomes operative, will governing bodies still be required to be guided by the standards described in the Scriptures and Confessions?

Yes, the new proposed last sentence to G-6.0106a would require that in examining for ordination, governing bodies are to be "guided by scriptural and constitutional standards, under the authority and Lordship of Jesus Christ." The constitutional standards include those described in both the Scriptures and The Book of Confessions.

Should the amendment be adopted, the standards (Scripture and Confessions) that guided sessions and presbyteries prior to 1978 would again be the standards (this time with the additional guidance of the Brief Statement). Sessions and Presbyteries will still be responsible to determine that candidates for ordination and installation are persons of strong faith, dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Their manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world (G-6.0106a).

If the proposed amendment passes, ordination decisions will still be subject to governing body discretion. The Constitution would not require the ordination or installation of any person that the relevant governing body found unworthy or unsuitable for any particular ministry. The only difference would be that the explicit prohibition against the ordaining of practicing homosexual persons would no longer exist in the Book of Order or the authoritative interpretations of the General Assembly. Governing bodies of this church would still bear the responsibility for assuring fitness for office. All affirmative and negative examinations before ordaining bodies may be appealed, calling for judicial review.