The advice to the 218th General Assembly (2008) from the Advisory Committee on the Constitution again brings into question the committee’s objectivity. 

The advice in 2006 on Recommendation #5 of the PUP Task Force and the advice in 2008 on ordination standards overtures indicate a distinct shift from the committee’s being a source of objective advice on church law to its being an advocate for selected causes.

The ACC’s advice has great influence on GA actions because few commissioners have the knowledge of church law and the self-confidence to challenge the ACC, and because the committee has had a longstanding reputation for objectivity. Being entrusted with great power imposes a special duty on ACC members to be as objective and impartial as possible. This includes (a) pointing out all relevant provisions of church law and previous ACC advice; (b) justifying why current ACC advice differs from previous advice; and (c) citing the most representative and relevant excerpts when quoting authorities. ACC members failed to fulfill these duties in 2006 and 2008 in at least eight instances, given below. These failures could have influenced, and possibly determined, several actions of the GA that were decided by close votes.

1. A major premise of PUP Recommendation #5 was that the proposed authoritative interpretation (AI) of G-6.0108 was not an innovation, but a return to the traditional principle established in 1729 that freedom of conscience applies equally to belief and behavior (Minutes, 2006, pp. 516-7).

In commenting on this premise, the ACC used as its primary source The Report of the Special Committee on Historic Principles, Conscience, and Church Government (Minutes, 1983, pp.141-58). It quoted a passage concerning the balance between an individual’s freedom of conscience and the church’s requirements. But the ACC failed to quote some of the report’s significant conclusive statements, given below, that conflict with the premise of Recommendation #5 (Minutes, 2006, p. 522):

“The situation regarding the requirements and prohibitions of the ‘Form of Government’ is different; because polity often requires compliance in behavior, whereas the confessional standards may not.” (Minutes, 1983, p.155) [This follows an explanation that since 1729 the confessional documents had not been binding in all their details upon the theological views of all church officers.]

“The fact that the church permits diversity of theological beliefs but in many areas requires uniformity of practice does not exalt polity over theology.” (Ibid., p.156) [This begins Conclusion 4.]

“Therefore freedom of conscience is not abridged by the requirements of our Constitution.” (Ibid., p. 158) [This is the concluding sentence of the solemn interpretation that the assembly adopted.]

2. While advising that G-6.0108 reflects the balance between freedom of conscience and the need for uniformity in essentials, the ACC asserted that the individual right of conscience is recognized in the Westminster Confession (Minutes, 2006, p. 521). But the ACC failed to advise that the confession states that the right applies to “matters of faith and worship,” and that its purpose is destroyed by those who use it to justify continuing in sin (The Book of Confessions, 6.109-10).

3. The ACC failed to advise the GA of two express limitations on the application of freedom of conscience in the first paragraph of G-6.0108: It is not to infringe on the rights and views of others, and it is not to obstruct the constitutional governance of the church. These limitations were relevant because the ordination of a candidate who refused to comply with G-6.0106b would appear to violate both of them. The GA PJC highlighted these limitations in its 2008 Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburg decision.

4. The ACC included the 2001 Londonderry decision in a list of GA PJC interpretations of G-6.0106b (Minutes, 2006, p. 520). But the ACC failed to advise that in Londonderry the GA PJC rejected an assertion that the freedom of conscience provisions of G-6.0108 apply to G-6.0106b (Minutes, 2001, p. 578).

5. None of these omissions was corrected in the 2008 advice, even though some had been called to the ACC’s attention and were relevant to some of the 2008 overtures. In its advice on Item 05-01, Section 4, it reiterated its statement about the Westminster Confession, but the ACC failed again to advise that the confession states the purpose of freedom of conscience is destroyed by those who use it to justify continuing in sin. Also, the ACC exacerbated its omission of the Londonderry ruling by stating incorrectly: “Prior to the approval of this [the 2006] authoritative interpretation, the relationship between G-6.0108 and G-6.0106b had not been authoritatively interpreted by either previous General Assemblies or the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission.”

6. Item 05-09 proposed a Book of Order amendment to delete the current G-6.0106b and an AI to nullify the statements of 1978 and 1979 and their subsequent affirmations. In one of the affirmations, the 1993 AI, the assembly adopted an ACC report whose principal finding was “Current constitutional law in the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) is that self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons may not be ordained as ministers of the Word and Sacrament, elders, or deacons.” (Minutes, 1993, pp. 76-77, 322) The only relevant change in church law since then was the addition of G-6.0106b, which incorporated the ACC’s finding into the Book of Order. But the ACC failed in 2008 to explain that the 1993 AI was an ACC finding, and failed to explain why, in view of G-6.0106b, that finding now is incorrect.

7. The nullification AI in Item 05-09 became effective upon adoption and, prima facie, is incorrect while G-6.0106b is in the Book of Order. In 2001 there also was an overture to delete G-6.0106b and to nullify the interpretive statements and their affirmations. Then the ACC advised that (a) the two actions would accomplish the purpose of the overture and (b) the AI should not take effect until the amendment was approved by the presbyteries, and the assembly accepted that advice (Minutes, 2001, pp. 51-52, 405). In 2008 the ACC advised (a), but failed to advise (b), and failed to explain why it did not apply in 2008.

8. On Item 05-07, the ACC advised disapproval in part because, it said, the expression “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness” is not clear and its words require interpretation based on their use in the confessions. But the ACC failed to reveal that in 1996 the ACC recommended the use of this expression, verbatim. Then, the ACC advised that if the General Assembly wished to prohibit the ordination of self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons it should propose adding a paragraph to G-6.0106 beginning: “Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. These standards require fidelity within the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness.” (Minutes, 1996, p. 246) In 2008 the ACC failed to explain why in 1996, but not in 2008, the expression was a clear, correct interpretation in contemporary English of a particular requirement of the historic confessional standards.

Warren Herron is a longtime elder at First Church, Marietta, Ga. He is a retired executive from an aerospace company.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Your Responses (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed