February 22, 2010: A Constitutional Crisis

This past Saturday's meeting of John Knox Presbytery -- in which Scott Anderson was approved for ordination -- makes clear the constitutional crisis of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). According to the Outlook report by Leslie Scanlon, "Anderson has been open in saying that he lives in a committed relationship of close to 20 years with his life partner, Ian MacAllister. He said he told the presbytery that 'if the state of Wisconsin granted us the privilege of a civil marriage license, Ian and I would be the first in line to sign up.'"

Why is it a crisis?

Follow this through:

Step one: G-14.0480 provides, "Ordination for the officer of minister of the Word and Sacrament is an act of the whole church carried out by the presbytery, setting apart a person to the ministry of the Word and Sacrament."
Step two: What is the standard? G-6.0106 Gifts and requirements.

"a. To those called to exercise special functions in the church -- deacons, elders, and ministers of the Word and Sacrament— God gives suitable gifts for their various duties. In addition to possessing the necessary gifts and abilities, natural and acquired, those who undertake particular ministries should be 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. They must have the approval of God’s people and the concurring judgment of a governing body of the church.

b. Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament." (emphasis added)

Openly "lives in a committed relationship of close to 20 years with his life partner," and "if the state of Wisconsin granted us the privilege of a civil marriage license, Ian and I would be the first in line to sign up" are not descriptions of chastity in singleness; nor are they a description of fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.
Step three: Is there any way that the standard should not apply constitutionally? G-6.0108 Freedom of Conscience -- Individual and Corporate, Within Certain Bounds.

"a. It is necessary to the integrity and health of the church that the persons who serve in it as officers shall adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in the Book of Confessions and the Form of Government. So far as may be possible without serious departure from these standards, without infringing on the rights and views of others, and without obstructing the constitutional governance of the church, freedom of conscience with respect to the interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained.

b. It is to be recognized, however, that in becoming a candidate or officer of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds. His or her conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church so long as he or she continues to seek or hold office in that body. The decision as to whether a person has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made initially by the individual concerned but ultimately becomes the responsibility of the governing body in which he or she serves. (G-1.0301; G-1.0302)."

The question is whether Anderson's scruple is a "serious departure" from the standards of faith and polity expressed in the Book of Confessions and the Form of Government. Is scrupling G-6.0106b holding his conscience captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church so long as he or she continues to seek or hold office? Or, is it a specific rejection of the Word of God as interpreted in a standard of the church?

This is not a conservative/progressive argument. It is a constitutional argument. Remember, G-1.0302 "...Every Christian Church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ hath appointed; that in the exercise of this right they may, notwithstanding, err, in making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow; yet, even in this case, they do not infringe upon the liberty or rights of others, but only make an improper use of their own." Wrong or right, in G-6.0106 the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has declared the terms of qualifications of its ministers. Those are the bounds. Scrupling those bounds means departing from them.
Step four: So what did John Knox Presbytery do?

According to the press release issued by John Knox Presbytery, Anderson declared a scruple from G-6.0106b; stating his objections to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) sexuality policy. In other words, he does not agree with the policy. It is not clear whether he declared a scruple based upon his own personal behavior -- whether he considers himself a "self-affirmed, unrepentant, practicing homosexual person."

Now -- I want to be careful here -- that last sentence is intended for procedural clarity. I am not saying that Anderson has done anything underhanded or deceptive. To the contrary, from his Affirmation of Conscience (if it is accurately posted on the Covenant Network site):

"God has blessed me with a faithful and loving partner who has been an integral part of my life for the past 17 years. In our life together we have sought to cultivate the kind of fidelity and love and self-giving that the Bible lifts up as God’s loving intention for married couples.

Obviously our relationship is not identical to a heterosexual marriage in all respects, inasmuch as natural procreation is not an option for us. The Confession of 1967 affirms that marriage is not only for the purpose of procreation and child rearing, but also a “ commitment to a mutually shared life ” (9:47). In this regard, I would hope the church’ s pastoral stance towards us would be the same as it is toward heterosexual couples who are infertile or past the age of childbearing. Like many childless couples, my partner and I can find other ways to participate in the generative work of the Creator."

That would seem to address some measure of personal behavior. However, the John Knox Presbytery press release says this: "Anderson's ordination bid included an "Affirmation of Conscience" stating his objections to the PC(USA)'s sexuality policy, which is widely interpreted as barring openly practicing gay and lesbian persons from ordained office." (emphasis added)

Thus, the scruple seems to be about his agreement with the policy (standard), not whether application of the policy (standard) to his manner of life would disqualify him.

The argument seems to be, "if I disagree with the policy and that disagreement is permissible, then the policy cannot be used to disqualify me."
Step five: Why does this mean there is a crisis?

If it is only one guy in one presbytery, why is this a big deal?

Go back to Step One. If ordination is an act of the whole church, it means the whole church (via John Knox Presbytery) voted to reject the Biblical, historic constitutional ordination standards they voted (via constitutional process) to uphold.

Yes, there is a remedial process available to challenge. Yes, there are a slew of General Assembly Permanent Judicial (GA PJC) decisions. Could the GA PJC find that the action of John Knox Presbytery was irregular? Sure.

However.

However.

However.

However, the problem right now is uncertainty. Instead of moving towards clarity and unity, this push is towards local option and ambiguity. It infringes on the rights and views of others and obstructs the constitutional governance of the church.

The upshot is that there is a Constitutional crisis. Either the constitutional standards are the standards, or there are no standards. John Knox Presbytery is putting the question squarely before the church: can any one presbytery decide to not abide by the standards of the church? (And, if so, what "constitutes" us as a denomination?)

By the way, this is a case in point illustration of why the proposed nFoG must be disapproved. If "shall" does not mean "shall," there is no trust. If there is no trust, there is no foundation upon which the new Form of Government can stand. Instead of equipping mission, the ambiguity designed into the nFoG would result in massive remedial litigation or widespread scrambling to seek shelter outside of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

What can be done?

Come back tomorrow.

Follow on RSS

Back to 219th General Assembly Prep Index

Posts older than June 20, 2008: Archives