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