I had a wonderful day today. We drove up to Lake Michigan to see one of our best friends from college (she was in our wedding party) and her family at their vacation cottage on the beach; she and her husband were there, and their three kids (generally the same ages as ours), and her dad, whom I also enjoy a great deal. I haven’t seen her since her oldest was a newborn, and I haven’t seen her husband (or her father, for that matter) since their wedding, so it was definitely too long. We had a great time talking church and family and work and other things, while the kids enjoyed themselves immensely playing together (mostly, though not only, down on the beach). I managed to burn myself in a few places due to misapplication of sunscreen—next time, I’ll go back to using the lotion instead of the spray—but no big deal.And then I got home to read the news from the PC(USA)’s General Assembly (GA): they voted to approve overtures to remove the 1978 Authoritative Interpretation, remove the chastity and fidelity clause from the Book of Order, and approve a new Authoritative Interpretation (AI) to allow officers to declare scruples with respect to ordination standards (which is to say, to declare that they’re going to ignore them). And then I spent some time reading the reactions from a number of my fellow conservatives in the church: Presbyterians for Renewal essentially conceding defeat, the Rev. Jim Berkley calling it “a sad, sorry episode,” the Rev. Dr. Alan Trafford declaring that “a line has been crossed” and that his congregation will no longer use the denominational seal, and perhaps most painfully, the Rev. Toby Brown shuttering his blog in grief. Clearly, there’s the feeling on the part of many that the disaster has come; the sky has fallen in.At the risk of making it sound like I think these folks are Chicken Littles—I don’t, especially as I think Jim’s exactly right that these actions “will precipitate much rancor and division within churches and presbyteries”—I don’t think the sky is in fact falling. Not yet, at least. Yes, this was a liberal GA, as most GAs are, and yes, it did what liberal GAs do, as do most GAs; but the actual effect of their decisions should be slight. Though these three decisions felt like “three hammer blows to the head,” I don’t believe they’ll turn out that way. To take them in order:Voting to remove the 1978 Authoritative Interpretation that declared homosexual acts incompatible with the will of God was a real and significant blow. However, it was one that was inevitably going to happen, whenever the liberal wing of the denomination decided they actually wanted to do it; and as long as G-6.0106b, which mandates “fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness” for all officers of the church, is still in force, then this is still the meaning of our denominational constitution, whether there’s an AI to say so or not. Which leads to Voting to remove the “chastity and fidelity clause,” which would be a major change, if that clause were actually removed—but it won’t be. That’s an amendment to the Book of Order, which requires the support of over half the presbyteries, which isn’t going to happen. This one, for all the noise it’s stirring up, is merely sound and fury signifying nothing.Voting to declare that the constitution permits officers to ignore behavioral standards is potentially the significant change, since this doesn’t have to be approved by the presbyteries. However, I don’t believe this one will stand either, though it will take longer to see for sure. The roots of this one go back a ways. The last GA, in 2006, voted to approve an AI that said this; when candidates for ordination actually stood up and announced their intention to ignore behavioral standards, however, and governing bodies decided to ordain them anyway, that action was challenged in the denominational courts (Permanent Judicial Commissions, or PJCs), and the denomination’s highest court, the GA PJC, said, “You can’t do that.” On my read, their conclusion is that “‘shall’ actually means ‘shall,’ that if the church’s constitution says you can’t do something, then you actually aren’t allowed to do it,” and that “stealth amendments” that attempt to rewrite the constitution without needing the approval of the presbyteries (by simply declaring that the constitution doesn’t mean what it plainly says) are not allowed. As I wrote in a letter I sent to Presbyweb a few months ago, “GAPJC has laid down the law that the only way to amend the Constitution is by actually amending it, and that it is not possible to interpret it to say what it does not in fact mean. Stealth amendments such as this ‘Authoritative Interpretation, are in and of themselves unconstitutional.”I wrote on that occasion, and I still believe now, that we can and should expect GAPJC to say so, clearly, when they are given the opportunity to do so. If that happens, then the end result of these high-profile, high-angst votes will have been nothing of practical consequence. Should I prove wrong, then the disaster will indeed have come upon us, and it will be time for those of us who accept the authority of Scripture to pack our bags for final departure. I don’t expect that to happen, but one never can tell for certain with committees.At this point, however, I’m more concerned about the GA’s decision to rubber-stamp the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee and elect Dmitri Medvedev—excuse me, the Rev. Gradye Parsons—the new GA Stated Clerk. Apparently, they decided that the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick’s terms in office were so good that they should continue his administration by proxy. I cannot agree. I’m firmly convinced that one of this denomination’s greatest problems is that the playing field is deliberately tilted, the process skewed in favor of those whose positions are favored by denominational staff, such that violations of constitutional process which produce results the denominational hierarchy likes (such as those which result in practicing homosexuals in ministry positions) are winked at, while those which don’t (such as attempts by churches to leave the denomination with their property) are pursued to the fullest extent of the law. Those who hold liberal positions are given every hearing, while those who oppose those positions are squelched, silenced or overpowered by every means the hierarchy can use to do so. There is no attempt to make the process work equally for everybody, or to allow everyone’s voice to be heard equally. The root of this problem, I’m firmly convinced, has been the practice of favoritism (which is a sin) by our denomination’s highest administrative official, the GA Stated Clerk, the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick; I was hoping GA would have the integrity to elect someone who would have the integrity to change this. From what I can see, they didn’t. The defections will continue.
I honestly find the conservative response to GA unbelieveable. I would say melodramatic. Because of a 55/45 split on amendment b and homosexual ordination that we’ve known was there for 30 years at least, suddenly the loyal opposition seems to be lamenting in sack-cloth and ashes.
It hasn’t been a picnic on this side either, frankly, but for a long time we’ve been waiting and doing what we can to overturn what we think is an unjust barrier to ordination. It might look like ‘we’ “won” this year because for decades before this we’ve “lost” every year.
I’m surprised at what’s happened – granted, surprised and happy about some of it, unhappy about other bits, but what’s really surprised me is people acting as if the earth was going to split open and the sky rain blood. As if it was a surprise that we’re a (semi) democratic denomination and that votes might not go your way this time around.
It just leaves me shaking my head.
I understand *exactly* how it feels to lament that your denomination is doing things you feel are unjust. This isn’t anything new to any of us, frankly, and I don’t know why its being treated in Chicken Little fashion. Its like the lamenting of Bush’s re-election, except that that vote has 10,000X more impact on our lives than anything GA will ever do.
I just don’t see it as a collapse of all hope, or as “Christless”, as one person put it (which is alwas offensive, but I’m used to being called Christless because of this one issue, or lacking morality, or any number of exaggerated things). That’s just a load. We disagree, and these things go back and forth. The issue is still live, God help us, and will suck up more resources and time I don’t doubt.
I just…don’t get it.
I guess I’m just really used to being disappointed by the Powers That Be, whether its the denomination, or the government, or whatever. Maybe its a difference of expectations, I don’t know.
This looks like a post. Sorry to take up so much space.
I understand the response, and I don’t think it’s melodramatic because I know it’s sincere; but I’ll admit to having been somewhat surprised as well by the way some folks reacted, because honestly, GA did exactly what I expected GA to do, because it’s what GA almost always does. Of course they voted in favor of those things–from a dispassionate perspective, what were the odds they’d do anything else? And now the fight shifts elsewhere, and the presbyteries will vote not to remove G-6.0106b, because that’s what the presbyteries do. It would be as much of a reversal if they don’t as it would have been if GA hadn’t sent that to them.
From where I sit, the only true point of unpredictability is what GAPJC will do with the John Knox AI whenever a case finally gets to them. Based on their own past rulings, they should render it inoperable–but it’s a committee, and you can never be completely sure what a committee’s going to do (especially after they tied themselves in knots to avoid even rebuking Jane Adams Spahr).
To some extent, it probably is a difference in expectations–or something related to that. There’s definitely the sense on the part of most of us on the right that the unelected officials of this denomination are perfectly willing to fold, tear, mutilate and spindle the constitution if they have to in order to get what they want (namely, in terms of the issues most people focus on, the ordination of self-affirmed practicing homosexuals, and the property of anyone who disagrees–with or without the congregation, it doesn’t matter).
I think you are right about the Presbyteries and the change in g-6.0106b. It is not going to pass; even if it did, there is still room to argue within the new language, though those who passed it obviously think it gets them what they want. I am more concerned about the new AI and the jettisoning of previous AIs. It is putting an awful lot of trust in GAPJC that I hesitate to say is unwarranted. Not to mention how this new AI will effectively tie GAJPC’s hand; it was specially designed to counter and address the GAJPC recent ruling. You know that the more liberal Presbyteries and churches will almost immediately start ordaining people (Lisa Larges will probably be first; symbolically, I can’t see why they would pass that up) What grounds exist for GAPJC to overrule a Presbytery on this? By my read, not much, and that’s a bit troubling. Also, I think once someone is ordained and installed in a call it is going to be extremely difficult to get the GAPJC or anybody to go back on that, and enforce the dissolution of the call. Nobody wants to look mean, uncharitable, or “homophobic”. The pressure to not act decisively to reverse such ordinations will be huge. I think we are hoping for the best, and that’s good, but we must, in all seriousness, prepare for the worst.
For the record, I oppose the ordination of practicing homosexuals more because I oppose the hermeneutical and theological gymnastics it takes to say that God doesn’t have a problem with that behavior than I do for the behavior itself. The issue is unrepentant sin of any sort; I wouldn’t ordain a non-repentant alcoholic, or heterosexual fornicator or adulterer either.
Doug, what is your standard for what is “just” or “unjust”? Just wondering…
The AI is itself unconstitutional. What we’re going to get here, I think, is a logically inevitable collision: there cannot be two independent final interpreters of the Book of Order; in the last analysis, either GAPJC or GA is final. GA has made its bid to claim that status; I expect GAPJC to trump it.
BTW, just thought of something…
I wonder who will be the first to scruple the requirement of having an M. Div to be ordained as a Minister of Word and Sacrament? If anything is up for grabs as far as scrupling goes…
The first one who can get a presbytery to buy the argument.
. . . which is to say, it ain’t happenin’.
Rev. Wayne:
Sorry for the delay, I’m in over my head with work.
For me justice is complicated, like everything with me is generally speaking. So I’ll quote my ethics professor:
“Just is the constant and perpetual will to give to each person their due.”
This leaves it messy, I know. I have in mind the Golden Rule and what I’d expect for myself, as well as our best information in terms of what can be known scientifically (that is, demonstrated overwhelmingly in clinical situations). I am also thinking specifically of restorative justice, rather than retributive justice (if the terms are unfamiliar, Google should suffice). I have in mind my pacifist convictions – that no one should inflict violence on another for any reason; that it is better to die than to do so. I also have in mind mercy as a ruling principle of justice – that it is what God shows us, far more than justice as “what we deserve”, and so it is our call to show mercy to others at every opportunity. I see this as caught up in our “due” – that it is that we should receive from each other in light of what God demonstrates. Lastly, I would lift up the principles of transparency and integrity – honesty and openness in all things, and consistency of inner belief and external practice.
Like I said, complicated.