February 23, 2010: What to do About a Constitutional Crisis

As noted yesterday, John Knox Presbytery's decision to ordain Scott Anderson is a manifestation of the constitution crisis in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

It was not an unforeseen crisis.

In fact, it was totally predicted and anticipated. As soon as the 213th General Assembly (2001) approved the formation of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity (the PUP Task Force), the die was cast. From its inception, the PUP Task Force was going to serve only one function: to achieve by recommendation what could not be accomplished by amendment. Further, despite all of the affirmations that "The PUP Report does not change anything," it is telling that the test case now involves a member of the PUP Task Force.

So, what can be done?

There are several options coming via overture to the 219th General Assembly (2010).

The first is OVT-001 (which will have a different number when assigned):

The Presbytery of San Diego Presbytery overtures the 219th General Assembly (2010) to issue an authoritative interpretation of G-6.0106 as follows: “Restoring to full force and effect the interpretive statements concerning ordained service of homosexual church members by the 190th General Assembly (1978) of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and the 191st General Assembly (1979) of the Presbyterian Church in the United States and all subsequent affirmations including the Bush v. Pittsburgh Presbytery (218-10) General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission decision.”

If approved during the pendency of the remedial appeal of John Knox Presbytery's decision, it would make clear that scrupling G-6.0106b is a serious departure from the standard of faith and polity expressed in the Book of Confessions and Form of Government.

If the standard is not clearly re-established, the General Assembly must recognize that presbyteries across the country will take two actions:

Declare a constitutional crisis. Whether by resolution or overture or declaration, there will be votes to declare the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is in constitutional crisis.
The next step will be determining how to respond. It will not be an individual congregation conversation any longer. The question will be posed, "What are the options when a denomination ceases to abide by its own constituting documents?" Figuring out next steps will be a presbytery by presbytery thing; but the one thing that is certain is the question of the larger picture will no longer be left in the hands of the General Assembly.

Preparing for this eventuality is exactly what San Diego Presbytery has been doing. The overture is a final plea for repentance.

Background of the overture

This overture was the natural outgrowth of a long process in San Diego Presbytery. (The length of this note is reflective of the length of the process.)

Prior to the 217th General Assembly (2006)

Even before the 217th General Assembly (2006) convened and considered the final recommendations of the PUP Task Force, San Diego Presbytery recognized the potential for this specific result. In March, 2006, San Diego Presbytery approved a Resolution.

The resolution was written in anticipation of the 217th General Assembly (2006) which was going to receive the PUP Task Force Report. It provided, in part, the following:

In response to the report of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Presbyterian Church (August 2005), and in light of the continuing dialog within our denomination regarding sexuality and ordination issues, the Presbytery of San Diego hereby resolves:

To consider immediately the following questions in the event of a significant change in the PC(USA)’s current standards related to (a) ordination and sexuality and/or; (b) connectional polity. By July 15, 2006 the Moderator will appoint a task force which will present a plan to address these questions at the September 2006 Presbytery meeting.
1. Does the change create a constitutional crisis?
2. Does the change create a state of biblical and confessional defection?
3. Has the covenant that binds our congregations and presbyteries together been breached?
4. Have the changes minimized or eliminated our covenantal obligation to abide by the polity and discipline of higher governing bodies?
5. Have the changes damaged or compromised the PC(USA)’s ability to exercise governance over its presbyteries?
6. What will be the future relationship between the The Presbytery of San Diego and the PC(USA)?
7. What future steps will The Presbytery of San Diego take to address our concerns with the PC(USA)?

The point was to recognize ahead of time the consequences of using the PUP Task Force report to justify "local option" regarding ordination standards. Affirmative answers meant that the General Assembly's action would amount to a defection -- an historic move away -- from those who had been faithful to the constitution and its process. Such a defection by action of the General Assembly would breach the covenantal obligation to San Diego Presbytery.

After the 217th General Assembly (2006)

When the 217th General Assembly (2006) affirmed the recommendations of the PUP Task Force, the Moderator of the Presbytery convened a special meeting of the presbytery. Declaring that the actions taken by the 217th General Assembly constituted a “potential significant change in our ordination standards,” the moderator charged the task force with implementing a way "to address the questions posed by the Resolution of March 2006 and developing a plan that would allow our presbytery to move forward in the wake of the confusion caused by the actions of the 217th General Assembly."

A Task Force on the Way Forward was generated (followed by the Way Forward Work Group). The final report can be found in the Minutes of the March, 2008 meeting of San Diego Presbytery. (The report starts on page 14 of the Minutes and continues through page 33.) The most important piece is the San Diego Declaration, which is a statement:

As of today, we, the Presbytery of San Diego declare that we are no longer primarily a governing body. We declare that we are a relational community and that we are becoming a mission agency.

The Past/A Governing Body: In recent years, our Presbyterian Church (USA) has described the identity of presbyteries as governing bodies. This gives the impression that the main reason we come together is to govern ourselves. It suggests that rules, regulations, and policies are what is most important about our life together. This is probably a result of the corporate and regulatory model of church that our denomination has followed in the twentieth century. While this may have been sufficient in the past, it does not describe who we are today or who we hope to become in the future. While we will continue to govern as needed, it is not the primary adjective that defines who we are. Our polity alone cannot be the reason enough for us to meet together.

The Present/A Relational Community: The main reason we as a presbytery come together today is for relationships: our relationship with God through Jesus Christ, our relationships with personal friends, and the relationships that congregations have with one another. It is through our God- given relationships that we experience joy, sorrow, purpose, fulfillment, and hope. Our connections are providing a bridge for us towards our emerging future. As a relational community, we will emphasize listening, learning, and praying. We have taken vows to abide by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and we will continue to do so, lovingly holding one another accountable in relationships. Our polity helps us set up appropriate boundaries for our relationships. It is a means to an end, it is not an end in and of itself. We see the value of being a part of a connectional system with other presbyteries and other communities who share a similar identity in Christ.

The Future/A Mission Agency: Our dream is that we will learn to become a mission agency together. As the early church laid hands on people and sent them out in mission (Acts 13:1-3), we hope to do the same. We live in a mission field and all of us are sent by God into it. God has a mission and God’s mission has a church. We hope to discern what God is doing in our world and join Christ in the mission He has already initiated. We hope to learn new skills for new forms of mission for this new millennium. We hope to launch new missional experiments to discover together how God’s Holy Spirit is leading us. We want to be a sent people who are shaped by God’s mission, energized by God’s mission, and defined by God’s mission. The reason we will come together is to discern where and how to be in mission together. We hope to connect with other mission agencies in California, the United States, Mexico, and around the world, extending the Kingdom of God here on earth. As we move into our new future, we desire to be both humble and bold. We are humble because we do not have all the answers, we are learning as we go, and we know we need each other’s wisdom and insight. We want to be bold because we do not want to be trivial or waste our time on what is not important. We long to make a difference in the world.

While not discounting the connection with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Declaration makes clear we are not interested in investing time or energy in another round of debates. Left open was the decision about what would happen if an Authoritative Interpretation undercut a clearly expressed standard in the Constitution. The storm clouds were on the horizon, but no definitive action was taken because there was a prayerful desire to see the denomination correct its own course.

After the 218th General Assembly (2008)

When the Authoritative Interpretation approved by 218th General Assembly (2008) wiping out all prior AI's, San Diego Presbytery's next step was to call a special meeting to approve the overture that is now before the 219th GA. The answers to the questions were all "yes." The overture is a final plea to the General Assembly to repent.

In case you were wondering, San Diego is not homogenous in its theology. We may not be as broadly diverse as other presbyteries, but we are not lock step with each other. There was overall agreement, however, that the action of the 218th GA was bad for everyone.

So, what can the 219th General Assembly do? Re-affirm the standard. To do otherwise is to vote for disintegration.

Follow on RSS

Back to 219th General Assembly Prep Index

Posts older than June 20, 2008: Archives