by Jerry Van Marter

In the same vote, the committee decided not to recommend a constitutional amendment to delete G-6.0106b, the provision that requires "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness." The committee recommended that measures to that effect "be answered" by its recommendation on the authoritative interpretation.

If adopted by the Assembly, the measure would issue a new authoritative interpretation reading: "In carrying out their responsibilities under the constitution to determine fitness for office, sessions and presbyteries are not bound by statements of the General Assembly and its commissions regarding ordained service by homosexual persons that predate the adoption of G-6.0106b." The vote on the measure was 35 to 30.

Elder John Matta of Pittsburgh Presbytery, a member of the General Assembly's Advisory Committee on the Constitution, called the 1978 authoritative interpretation "one of the two legs of the stool" prohibiting gay and lesbian ordination. The church's Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) has said that both the authoritative interpretation and G-6.0106b must be removed in order for the way to be cleared for gay and lesbian ordination in the PC(USA).

The Rev. Jamie Pharr, a committee member, said the action "doesn't rescind the 1978 authoritative interpretation, but removes it as 'authoritative.'" A similar authoritative interpretation, issued by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission in 1985, would also be superceded by the new interpretation if the Assembly concurs.

The Rev. Jennifer Lewis of Chicago Presbytery, who proposed the action, called it a compromise. "This doesn't go for full inclusion, as some have hoped, nor does it satisfy those who want to keep all of the church's standards," she told the committee. "What it does is give us a way forward."

Other committee members disagreed. Elder Phyllis Spielmann, of Los Ranchos Presbytery predicted that the action would "open up the church to differing interpretations of G-6.0106b" and "produce more chaos and more division."

The committee also defeated, 34 to 30, a motion to deal with all five measures related to ordination standards by asking the church to pray for and support the call of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church for church-wide dialogue.

Elder Donald Mitchell, of Huntingdon Presbytery, had urged such a move. "The Theological Task Force is well along," he said. "Removing the authoritative interpretation would make some of their work moot."

Youth Advisory Delegate (YAD) Robert Spencer, of the Presbytery of John Knox, contended that "taking away the authoritative interpretation will help the task force by removing outdated stuff that's not in the Bible or the Book of Order ."

Spencer also questioned the logic of an authoritative interpretation that predated the Book of Order provision it interprets by 18 years (G-6.0106b was adopted in 1996).

Another YAD, Brandon Rothey, of Pittsburgh Presbytery, rejected arguments that the authoritative interpretation has created confusion in the church. "You may agree or disagree with it," he said. "But the authoritative interpretation is not confusing."

Not confusing, but obsolete, others argued. Noting that the 1978 policy was based in part on research done by the Kinsey Institute in the 1940s and early 1950s, YAD Jennifer Coulter of Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery urged the committee to "remove this antiquated scientific language."

But Elder Thomas Armstrong of Tampa Bay Presbytery said various forces "have been chipping away at morality in our country, and I see this as once more chipping away. I've tried to be open-minded, but I keep coming back to scripture and our confessions, and I can't go along with this."

The Rev. Randy Harris, of Foothills Presbytery, predicted: "Whatever we do this year, we'll be dealing with this issue for years to come."