Is "Fidelity-Chastity" Still in Effect?

 
 

Is "Fidelity-Chastity" Still in Effect? Yes!   November 20, 2008

Dear Presbyterian Renewal Network Leaders,     Some confusion exists about the position of the PC(USA) on sexual standards for ordination.  Actions by the General Assembly in 2006 and 2008, and a decision by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission in 2008, have been interpreted differently in different quarters of the denomination.     Coalition board member Jim Berkley attended a recent meeting of the Covenant Network and reported in The Layman the public statements he heard at that meeting.  James Tony, also a Coalition board member, responded. I think you will benefit from reading why Pastor Tony asserts that the behavior of candidates for ordination and installation must comply with the express standard of G-6.0106b.     The article below -- now slightly expanded -- appeared on Presbyweb on November 17 and is posted on the Coalition website as well. I'm reproducing it in this email. For a more complete analysis of the current status of ordination standards, I suggest you read the three articles on AO #22 by James Tony and Gordon Fish.

Is it now possible to ordain those who do not comply with the "fidelity-chastity" standard? Not according to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GA PJC).     Jim Berkley reports that at the Covenant Network's recent meeting, Doug Nave ("ubiquitous as counsel arguing for gay ordination in judicial cases") said, "who knows if B [Amendment B, which proposes to substitute ambiguous language for the fidelity-chastity standard] will pass or not. We haven't taken a vote in a long time. But it almost doesn't matter. Whether it happens or not, we have the ability right now to ordain whoever we want to ordain."     Is Nave right?  No, says the GA PJC in Bush, which is exceedingly clear and definitive:  Governing bodies are not free to permit exceptions to the explicit requirements of the Constitution. The decision cites the explicit requirements of G-6.0106b.  Just read what the GA PJC has actually said.     Some, apparently, want to believe that the John Knox Overture to the last GA overturned Bush.  Not so.  Here is that Authoritative Interpretation (AI) as adopted by the 218th GA:   "[The 218th General Assembly (2008) affirms the authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 approved by the 217th General Assembly (2006). Further, the 218th General Assembly (2008), pursuant to G-13.0112, interprets] the requirements of G-6.0108 [to] apply equally to all ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Section G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse a candidate's inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments)."  [Underlined is the amendment to the overture that was adopted.] Note:  no mention is made of Bush in what the GA adopted.  Bush was not made "of no further force or effect."      In addition, no governing body has been given the right to provide for itself an exemption from the requirements of the constitution.  Because governing bodies ordain (not individuals) and because governing bodies must comply with all the requirements of the Book of Order, they are not free to ordain someone who refuses to comply with explicit standards of the Book of Order.      Even if governing bodies might be permitted to allow candidates a pass on ordination standards (and Bush does not even countenance that possibility), governing bodies themselves do not have the power to grant themselves an exemption from complying with the plainly stated requirements of the Book of Order.  G-6.0106b does not address individuals.  It addresses governing bodies as those responsible for ordination.  This is firmly established church law as in the Maxwell, Suwanee and Londonderry decisions.      Read Bush carefully What follows are clear and forceful sections that show that the behavior standard required by G-6.0106b has not been changed, nor does any governing body have the right, even under the recent AIs related to G-6.0108, to permit any person to fail to comply with the requirements of G-6.0106b. Bush says: No Departures from "Fidelity and Chastity" Requirement: Candidates and examining bodies must follow G-6.0108 in reaching determinations as to whether  the candidates for ordination and/or installation have departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity. Such determinations do not rest on distinguishing"belief" and "behavior," and do not permit departure from the "fidelity and chastity" requirement found in G-6.0106b.       As finally adopted by the General Assembly, the Authoritative Interpretation [of the 216th GA] does not equate "polity" with "behavior." Nevertheless, the church has required those who aspire to ordained office to conform their actions, though not necessarily their beliefs or opinions, to certain standards, in those contexts in which the church has deemed conformity to be necessary or essential. Section G-6.0106b contains a provision where conformity is required by church officers "to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or in chastity in singleness." The church has decided to single out this particular manner of life standard and require churchwide conformity to it for all ordained church officers. Therefore, the specific  "fidelity and chastity" standard in G-6.0106b stands in contrast to the provisions of G-6.0106a, including those concerning faith, discipleship, belief and manner of life in the  church and the world, and also the remainder of G-6.0106b. The candidate and examining body must follow G-6.0108 in reaching a determination as to whether the candidate for office has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity, but that  determination does not rest on distinguishing "belief" and "behavior," and does not  permit departure from the "fidelity and chastity" requirement found in G-6.0106b.  Accordingly that portion of SPJC [the synod court] decision that stated: "no presbytery may grant an  exception to any mandatory church wide behavioral ordination standard," was correct.  We agree with the SPJC that, "Under our polity, violations of behavioral standards are to be addressed through repentance and reconciliation, not by exception or exemption. The freedom of conscience granted in G-6.0108 allows candidates to express disagreement with the wording or meaning of provisions of the constitution, but does not permit disobedience to those behavioral standards."         The fidelity and chastity provision may only be changed by a constitutional amendment. Until that occurs, individual candidates, officers, examining and governing bodies must adhere to it.       The constitutional process for amending ordination standards (or any other provision of the Constitution) is defined in Chapter 18 of the Form of Government. While the General Assembly and the GAPJC may interpret these standards, the Authoritative Interpretation did not (and constitutionally could not) change any ordination standard, including the requirements set forth in G-6.0106b. Similarly, no lower governing body can constitutionally define, diminish, augment or modify standards for ordination and installation of church officers.     It would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit examining bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been adopted by the whole church, such as the "fidelity and chastity" portion of G-6.0106b, or any other similarly specific provision. (Emphasis above is mine.) No interpretation has supplanted Bush.  The Bush decision could hardly be clearer or more emphatic: our Constitution does not permit governing bodies to provide exceptions to its express requirements.  Of course, those who stand for the removal of biblical sexual standards will test the court.  Cases are in the pipeline.  But G-6.0106b must be obeyed because it's in the Constitution -- the GA PJC makes this crystal clear.     James R. Tony is Senior Pastor of Palos Park Presbyterian Community Church in Chicago Presbytery.

I hope this work by members of the Coalition's Discipline Team is both encouraging and helpful to you. We hope it gives you confidence as you conduct examinations in your presbytery, and as you vote "No" on the new Amendment B and preserve our current ordination standards.     Yours in Christ,     Terry Schlossberg

Privacy Policy.

The Presbyterian Coalition | 4604 Grove Avenue | | Richmond | VA | 23226

Advent 2008

Occasion/Date	Title/Theme and Lectionary for Lighting of Candle	Scriptures for Further Reflection
1st Sunday of Advent November 30, 2008	Light of the Heart, Our Hope Isaiah 64:1-9; 1 Corinthians 1:3-9; Mark 13:24-37	2 Corinthians 4:6 Isaiah 9:2 Romans 12:12a; Titus 2:13
2nd Sunday of Advent December 7, 2008	Light of Life, Our Peace Isaiah 40:1-11; 2 Peter 3:8-15a; Mark 1:1-8	John 8:12b Isaiah 9:6 Zechariah 9:10b
3rd Sunday of Advent December 14, 2008	Light of Truth, Our Joy Isaiah 61:1-4, 8-11; 1 Thessalonians 5:16-24; John 1:6-8, 19-28	John 3:21 Luke 2:10(-11) Isaiah 49:13a
4th Sunday of Advent December 21, 2008	Light of Salvation, We Love 2 Samuel 7:1-11, 16; Romans 16:25-27; Luke 1:26-38	Psalm 27:1 1 John 4:9, 10a, 19
Christmas Eve (Wednesday) December 24, 2008	Light of the World, We Rejoice Isaiah 9:2-7; Titus 2:11-14; Luke 2:1-14, (15-20)	John 8:12a; John 9:5 Luke 1:14

Prayer Walking and Growing the Church toward Community Transformation

A fellow colleague in ministry and a dear friend and brother in Christ, Chris Walker led a workshop this past week at the Transformation Pastors Gathering presented by the PCUSA Office of Congregational Transformation.  In his recent blog post on EvangelismCoach.org
Chris writes about a missional activity involving intercessory prayers
in motion that has been referred to as "prayer walking": praying on
site with insight.  My wife Melissa and I have participated together
with others in this endeavor in the neighborhoods and communities of
our past two congregations and have seen God move mightily in our
midst.  We sensed the Lord's call earlier this past year to begin doing
this at our current church congregation and are excited to watch what
Jesus does (WWJD) and is already doing among us as we walk anew and
seek His face together in faith.  May God be pleased to pour out the
Holy Spirit's powerful anointing and reveal the Lord's favor and
presence with, in, and over us in these days.  That times of refreshing
and transformation may come upon our fellowship for God's glory and the
common good in our community. 

How the new Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 does not allow ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians

How it is that the new Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 does not allow ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians

Written by Edward Koster
Tuesday, 08 July 2008 13:31

The initial reactions to the Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 approved by the General Assembly in San Jose were dramatic. Some were rejoicing, others despairing, because they believed that the General Assembly, in approving the overture submitted by the John Knox Presbytery, had removed the impediment to the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians that had been declared by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission in the case Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh.

This new AI would overturn the Bush decision and bring immediate relief from the prohibition from ordaining non-celibate gays and lesbians by allowing governing bodies to declare the fidelity and chastity provision of G-6.0106b not essential to the Reformed faith and practice.
I include myself among those who initially interpreted it in that way. I concluded that because I was recalling the wording of the John Knox overture, which called for an Authoritative Interpretation that cancelled the GAPJC holding on Bush. Under our ordinary rules of authoritative interpretations, the most recent AI prevails, and the San Jose AI would effectively cancel the Birmingham AI. The General Assembly, however, did not cancel out the Birmingham AI: It affirmed it.

The Bush case was an appeal of the decision of Pittsburgh Presbytery to declare a set of standards that could not be waived. The Synod of the Trinity PJC held that a governing body could not do that, for each case must be considered individually. Then it went one step further: It declared that the fidelity and chastity provision of G-6.0106b could not be waived, and the General Assembly PJC affirmed.

The effect of Bush was to shut down any hope that the Birmingham AI would allow an ordaining body to ordain a candidate who declared he or she will not comply with the fidelity and chastity provision of G-6.0106b. It did so by declaring that this “standard” of ordination was excluded from the historic principle that governing bodies have sole discretion in determining whether candidates hold to the essentials of reformed faith and practice. This is distinct from the principle that a governing body may not itself violate the Constitution.

The paradox of the Bush case was that on the one hand a presbytery could not declare a set of non-waivable standards, while at the same time it declared a non-waivable standard. This contradiction gave persuasive weight to the John Knox overture.

But when the GA amended the John Knox overture to affirm the Birmingham AI, it kept the requirement that a judicial commission may not allow an ordaining body to violate the Constitution. If a governing body ordains or installs a person who refuses to comply with something the Confessions call sin, it would be in violation of G-6.0106b.

The San Jose AI leaves us in a rather complex position constitutionally, for we now have two authoritative interpretations of the same provision of the Book of Order. The Birmingham AI requires that a presbytery or session comply with the Constitution when it ordains, while the intent of the San Jose AI is to allow ordination and installation of those who declare they will not comply with provisions of G-6.0106b.

We are in a pickle.

Believe it or not, it is common for laws and rules to be in conflict. Every lawyer knows this and regularly applies rules of “statutory interpretation.” There are no such rules in the Book of Order, but there are in Robert’s Rules of Order, which the Book of Order requires us to follow. When there are two rules, one specific and one general, the specific rule takes priority: “A general statement or rule is always of less authority than a specific statement or rule and yields to it.” Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised [RONR] (1990, 10th ed.), p. 571. The San Jose AI declares a general principle; the Birmingham AI declares a specific rule. Under this principle of interpretation, the Birmingham AI would take priority when it comes to the matter of compliance with G-6.0106b.

Moreover, when there are two interpretations of a rule, one of which renders an absurd outcome, that one must yield: When a provision of the bylaws is susceptible to two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another bylaw provision, and the other meaning does not, the latter must be taken as the true meaning. RONR (1990, 10th ed.), p. 570. If the San Jose AI is found to take precedence over the Birmingham AI, then it would appear a presbytery could allow any departure from our confessional standards. For example, there would be no way to prohibit a governing body from ordaining someone refusing to repent of adultery or fornication. This is an absurd outcome that no one accepts as appropriate. Therefore the San Jose AI must yield to the Birmingham AI when G-6.0106b is at issue.

It appears that we are in the same place we were when the General Assembly adjourned in 2006. According to what the GA approved there in Birmingham, whether a governing body has complied with the Constitution and has considered the matter reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately is to be determined by judicial process. That culminated in the decision in Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh, which the San Jose AI overturned. Because the Birmingham AI has been affirmed and retained, a PJC this time will need to decide whether the General Assembly has the power to authorize a violation of the Constitution.

ED KOSTER is the stated clerk of Detroit Presbytery (Mich.)

PC(USA) - Presbyterian News Service - Good evangelism means heavy lifting and faith sharing

PC(USA) - Presbyterian News Service - Good evangelism means heavy lifting and faith sharing

"Fidelity and Chastity" Ordination Standards Upheld in Recent Rulings by Highest PCUSA Court Applying Authoritative Interpretation Approved by GA 2006

FYI – The PCUSA ordination standards have been reaffirmed by recent rulings as decided upon by the highest court of the denomination (akin to the U.S. Supreme Court). The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has ruled that “Fidelity and Chastity” remains binding with respect to what is now regarded as the established proper application of the Authoritative Interpretation that was amended and approved by the 2006 General Assembly.


From: PFR [mailto:pfroffice@pfrenewal.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:27 AM
Subject: Breaking News from Presbyterians For Renewal



BREAKING NEWS FROM
presbyterians for renewal


February 14, 2008
PC(USA) High Court Rules "Fidelity and Chastity" Standard Remains Binding

Tuesday February 12 the PC(USA)'s highest court issued a landmark decision that has direct bearing on the intense debate over ordination standards in the PC(USA).

For the last twenty months, a confusing debate has raged on the meaning of a new "authoritative interpretation" (AI) of the constitution passed by the 2006 General Assembly. Indeed congregations have left the PC(USA) in recent months, citing this new AI as a primary cause. The new AI appeared as though it would allow sessions and presbyteries to ordain candidates who were in open violation of our denomination's constitutional standards for ordination, including the biblical "Fidelity and Chastity" standard. In addition, just last month two presbyteries cited this new AI as justification for their decisions to allow open departures from the "Fidelity and Chastity" standard.

However, in three decisions issued yesterday, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) has ruled that no ordaining body (session or presbytery) has the right to ordain a candidate who is in violation of constitutional standards, including the "Fidelity and Chastity" standard expressed in the Book of Order (G-6.0106b). With these new GAPJC rulings, we can now rest assured that our standards for ordination in the PC(USA) continue to reflect the clear teaching of Scripture and the plain meaning of our constitution.
Click here to read the rest ot this article on GA2008.com where you can also offer your comments on this issue.



presbyterians for renewal
Mobilizing leaders of congregations within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
to be biblically faithful and missionally minded
in their service to Jesus Christ

For information on the ministry that is PFR
visit http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001SbrvdaYU6osXXf7D1sMgNScUKmLh6DTcYVZZHF08WumSSOe8hB7MH79H5P6l6S7zaH82EeZfFZCoDCVHGBBK6su_CmLq7DJdxd1Zfuoraq-prwNWi7Eo7w==

For news and commentary on issues coming to the 218th General Assembly,
visit http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001SbrvdaYU6ov_HOJzJ9E7KiU7fQNga3ovPuyZ7wH1zjmHJopKeyP925D0UEEUUVHTliHDHzQykKFD4EThjcvjan0mHGeoY-FhENBjlD9aV9BXLffoQ8dcgA==

Paul Detterman, Executive Director
James Harper, President
Phil Moran, Chairman of the Issues Ministry Team

Presbyterians For Renewal
8134 New LaGrange Rd
Suite 227
Louisville KY 40222

Fan the Flame

Pastoral Perspective -- In the Cold Winter Snow & Ice
17 January 2008


Burnin’ Love, Warmin’ Up Again
SPECIAL POINTS OF INTEREST:
· Love on the line
· Runnin’ out of time
· Longer, stronger
· Care about, don’t doubt
· Know today, hug and pray
· Celebrate each other
in love
· Comin’ down, still around
INSIDE THIS ISSUE:
In Paradise
Cold as ice
Go out
Find a flame
Warm it up again
Fan into flame
The Gift of
God in you


Find and Fan the Flame

Recently, in the cold mid-winter snow and ice, as I was driving from pastoral visit to hospital visits and going from prayer meeting to pastoral meetings, I took some time to listen to some mp3 files of a few old songs from back in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. One in particular tugged at my heart as it reminded me of the verse in the apostle Paul’s second letter to Timothy that, translated in the NIV, contains the phrase “fan into flame.”

The refrain from the song sung by one of my favorite recording artists, Al Jarreau in the track entitled “Trouble in Paradise” kept reverberating in my soul:

When it looks like trouble in paradise, and you’re burnin’ love that’s cold as ice… Go out and find the flame so you can warm it up again.

The Lord was impressing upon me in that moment of listening in the Spirit singing through the song with the gifted voice of talent in one such as Al Jarreau

For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God which is in you…
—2 Timothy 1:6a

something that had already been resonating more and more in my soul of late.

• 
  
  I continue to have a deep desire and need for intimate times of communion with the Lord, hungering and thirsting after God in my personal devotions.


• 
  
  I so long to live increasingly into the love of the Lord among God’s people here in our fellowship of faith at First Presbyterian Church in New Castle, Indiana.


• 
  
  I yearn to experience the greater depths of love and grace in God’s gift of a soul mate to and for me in my spouse.


• 
  
  I anticipate with joy and excitement (and trepidation) the blossoming of our children into the blessings God intends them to be for the blessing of others in the world.

These are a few foundational desires of my heart that resound in song through the depths of my being, soul, and spirit. The Psalmist David’s words come to mind… Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart. Beloved, give your heart’s desires over to God Who delights in us as His children. When it looks like “trouble in paradise”, fan into flame the gift of God in you and warm up your love again! P. Rex

Of the Gift of God in you

TROUBLE IN PARADISE
(Al Jarreau)

When it appears
your love is finally on the line
And you can't hold it back much longer
And when it seems as though
you're runnin' out of time
That's the time you should be stronger
Well, if you care about her
Don't you ever doubt her love
Would you turn around and
throw it all away?
Just let her know today

That it looks like trouble in paradise
And you're burnin' love that's cold as ice
Go out and find a flame
So you can warm it up again
When it looks like trouble in paradise
And you're burnin' love that's cold as ice
Go out and find a flame
So you can warm it up again…

May you always have
somebody to depend on
And may your days be celebrations
And may there always be
an angel on your shoulder
To help the awkward situations
And if you love each other
You'll never need another love
When the whole wide world has
finally got you down,
She'll still be around

When it looks like trouble in paradise
When you're burnin' love that's cold as ice
Go out and find a flame
So you can warm it up again
When it looks like trouble in paradise
And you're burnin' love that's cold as ice
Go out and find the flame
So you can warm it up again...