Overture 81
On Amending Recommendation 5 of the Final Report
of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of
the Church—From the Presbytery of Philadelphia.
The Presbytery of Philadelphia overtures the
217th General Assembly (2006) to receive the Final Report of
the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the
Church with thanks and to make the following amendments to Recommendation
5. (which can be found on pp. 35-36 of
the printed report): [Text to be added or inserted is shown
as italic.]
“5. The Task Force on Peace, Unity,
and Purity of the Church recommends that the 217th General Assembly
(2006) approve the following authoritative interpretation of
section G-6.0108 of the Book of Order:
“a. [Text remains unchanged.]
“b. [Text remains unchanged.]
“c. Ordaining and installing bodies,
acting as corporate expressions of the church, have the responsibility
to determine their membership by applying these standards
to those elected to office. These determinations include:
“(1) [Text remains unchanged.]
“(2) Whether any departure violates
a direct provision of the Book of Order, thus barring the
candidate from ordination and/or installation.
“(3) Whether, if no direct provision
applies, the departure constitutes a failure to adhere to
the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108
of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination
and/or installation.
“d. Whether the ordaining/installing
body has conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly,
prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a candidate
for church office is subject to review by higher governing
bodies. It shall not be deemed reasonable or responsible
for an ordaining/installing body to fail to maintain any standard
stipulated in the Book of Order.
“e. [Text remains unchanged.]”
Rationale
The preface to the Book of Order defines
certain words used in the Book of Order
in the following way:
In this Book of Order
(1) SHALL and IS TO BE/ARE TO BE signify
practice that is mandated,
(2) SHOULD signifies practice that is strongly
recommended,
(3) IS APPROPRIATE signifies practice that
is commended as suitable,
(4) MAY signifies practice that is permissible
but not required.
The Authoritative Interpretation in Recommendation
5 would allow sessions and presbyteries to decide whether mandated
sections of the Book of Order (those that include the
words “shall” or “is to be/are to be”)
are essential or not. This would produce the absurd result of
allowing sessions and presbyteries to decide that there are
nonessential requirements in the Book of Order when examining
a candidate for office.
The rationale for the authoritative interpretation
claims that the authoritative interpretation interprets section
G-6.0108 but would directly affect other sections of the Constitution.
Sections G-14.0207 and G-14.0405b list the constitutional questions
for the ordination and installation of officers. While the questions
concerning The Book of Confessions (G-14.0207c and G-14.0405b(3))
ask the candidate to receive and adopt the essential tenets
of the Reformed faith, the questions concerning polity and governance
of the church (G-14.0207e and G-14.0405b(5)) make no mention
of essential portions of the Book of Order but rather require
an affirmative answer to the question, “Will you be governed
by our church’s polity, and will you abide by its discipline?”
In the remedial case of Maxwell v. Presbytery
of Pittsburgh (1975), the General Assembly Permanent Judicial
Commission decided that a candidate for the office of minister
of Word and Sacrament could not be ordained because he would
not ordain women as elders. Part of the reason the Permanent
Judicial Commission made this decision is expressed in the following
sentence. “A candidate who chooses not to subscribe to
the polity of this church may be a more useful servant of our
Lord in some other fellowship whose polity is in harmony with
the candidate's conscience.”
This authoritative interpretation has the
potential of opening a “Pandora’s Box” of
differing opinions on what is essential and nonessential in
the Book of Order. While we have placed much of our focus
on section G-6.0106b of the Form of Government, any part of
the Book of Order could be considered nonessential. The
result could be an unbearable load of remedial cases brought
before permanent judicial commissions. A further result could
be the balkanization of the Presbyterian Church, (U.S.A.) as
a candidate approved by one presbytery could be rejected as
a member of another presbytery.
This authoritative interpretation could
break the connectional nature of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
and the unity of the church.
|
