| 07315
May 29, 2007
Synod PJC: presbytery can’t make ordination standards essential
Establishing ‘super standard’ skirts authoritative interpretation
LOUISVILLE — A church court has concluded that Pittsburgh Presbytery cannot “elevate” language from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) constitution to make compliance with ordination standards “essential” and that it must apply the guidelines to ministerial candidates on an individual basis.
The May 16 ruling by the Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) of the Synod of the Trinity followed a two-day hearing in Camp Hill, PA, regarding a resolution that Pittsburgh Presbytery adopted on Oct. 12, 2006.
The presbytery’s resolution called compliance with the PC(USA)’s ordination standards from The Book of Order, which require chastity in singleness or fidelity in heterosexual marriage, an “essential of Reformed polity.” It stated that no exceptions would be permitted within the jurisdiction of Pittsburgh Presbytery.
The resolution also said that clergy are prohibited from conducting same-sex marriages within the presbytery.
The resolution became the focus of a synod court case after three Presbyterian ministers in Pittsburgh, along with two of their church sessions, complained that the middle governing body exceeded its authority to interpret the church’s constitution by approving a “super standard” that “supplants” the PC(USA)’s ordination standards.
The synod PJCruled 8-3 that the presbytery could not call the ordination standards “an essential” of Reformed polity.
“The presbytery has the authority and duty to examine all candidates individually but does not have the authority to create a ‘super standard’ in so doing,” the ruling said.
Making The Book of Order standards essential would “wrongfully” set aside the recently approved “authoritative interpretation” to the PC(USA)’s constitution, the ruling said.
The authoritative interpretation, ratified by the PC(USA)’s 217th General Assembly last summer, maintains existing ordination standards for church officers but gives ordaining bodies greater leeway in applying those standards to individual candidates for ordination.
The assembly’s action, which originated with its Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church (PUP), also declared that all ordinations must be in compliance with the PC(USA) constitution.
By adopting the ordination standards as essential, the ruling said, Pittsburgh Presbytery “expressly prohibits any exception from the requirements,” despite the authoritative interpretation and “the historic principle giving presbyteries the responsibility to determine individually, as to each candidate coming before it, whether the candidate has departed from scriptural and constitutional standards of fitness for office and whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to essentials of Reformed faith and polity.”
In language affirming the national church’s stance, the synod PJC said candidates could disagree with ordination standards, but that obedience was mandatory.
“The freedom of conscience ... 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 ruling said.
The standard of faithful marriage or chaste singleness “is a behaviorally measured standard which applies to all ordained officers of the church. It is clear. It is mandatory,” the ruling said.
The synod PCJ voted 11-0 that Pittsburgh Presbytery had the right to prevent clergy from conducting same-sex marriages, but could not prohibit ministers from performing services to bless same-sex unions, a practice that the PC(USA)’s highest court, the General Assembly PJC, has upheld.
“The Book of Order (G-9.0103) states that when the Constitution is silent ‘powers not mentioned (are) reserved to the presbyteries,’” the ruling said. “Therefore, the Presbytery of Pittsburgh has the authority to establish policy disallowing Ministers of Word and Sacrament to conduct same-sex marriages.”
The Pittsburgh ministers who filed the complaint last year challenging the presbytery’s resolution were the Rev. Randall Bush, pastor of East Liberty Presbyterian Church, and the Rev. Mary Louise McCullough, pastor of Sixth Presbyterian Church, along with their church sessions, and the Rev. Wayne Peck, pastor of Community House Presbyterian Church.
“We were very pleased with the ruling,” McCullough told the Presbyterian News Service on May 24. “We feel that the (synod) PJC really heard the arguments that we were making about why this was something that just was completely out of the realm of what a presbytery is really supposed to be about in passing this overture.”
Peck told the Presbyterian News Service that he was pleased with the ruling “and thought it was a fair hearing and one that was very candid in discerning between two points of view.”
Bush said he was also pleased with the ruling’s outcome.
“I’m please with the ruling’s recognition that presbyteries can’t establish essentials that automatically preclude entire groups of people from being considered for ordination,” he said. “And that all of our work should be done with an openness and discerning spirit considering the candidates for ordination on a case-by-case basis. I believe the synod ruling affirmed that and was please with its outcome.”
The Rev. James Mead, pastor to Pittsburgh Presbytery, said he believes the ruling does not change much.
“I don’t think that it will have too much impact on the presbytery’s actual behavior,” Mead told the Presbyterian News Service on May 25. “We’re pretty careful and responsible about how we deal with both candidates as potential pastors and as a matter of fact we’re a pretty inclusive presbytery.”
He said it was never the presbytery’s intention to establish a super standard in which to review candidates for ordination.
“The majority of Pittsburgh Presbytery simply wanted to say … here’s how we understand the national standards as a pastoral matter,” Mead said. “And frankly as a matter of reassuring itself that what the stated clerk and others on the PUP task force said was in fact the case in Pittsburgh. And that is that our ordination standards have not changed.”
Three synod PJC commissioners filed a dissenting opinion saying they objected to the characterization that the presbytery created a super standard for determining ordination.
The Rev. H.C. Ted Kelley, Gwilym A. Price III, and Jestyn G. Payne wrote in their dissent that “we submit the intent of the Presbytery of Pittsburgh was not to create a ‘super’ layer of ecclesiastical law but rather to reaffirm what already had been clearly stated in The Book of Order, so as to preclude continued confusion in the standards.”
The three commissioners also said they believed the presbytery’s resolution was not “erroneous in eclipsing the conscience” of any candidate for ordination or installation by making essential constitutional standards of The Book of Order.
“We feel that while there may be a perception of subscription, the intent of the resolution is to clarify candidating requirements so that the ordaining/installing process is not compromised,” the three wrote in their dissent opinion.
The three also said they perceived no intent in the presbytery’s resolution to “threaten the balance between faith and order” or to negate a case-by-case examination of a candidate.
“Rather, we perceive the resolution ensures that the conscience of a candidate remains within the confines of The Book of Order standards,” the three wrote.
The Rev. Mark Tammen, director of the Department of Constitutional Services with the PC(USA)’s Office of the General Assembly, could not be reached for comment.
Both sides have 45 days to appeal the decision to the General Assembly PJC.
|
