John Knox
Presbytery, with offices in Richland
Center, Wis.,
responding to a recent decision of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial
Commission, has passed an overture which, if approved, could allow candidates
to state objections based on conscience to the sexual behavior standards of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
On Feb. 11,
the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) — the highest court in the PC(USA) system —
issued a decision that said, in effect, that candidates for ordination must
comply with those sexual behavior standards, even if they disagree in
conscience with them. The PC(USA) requires that candidates for ordination or
installation as minister, elder, or deacon practice fidelity if married or
chastity if single.
An
authoritative interpretation the General Assembly approved in 2006 does allow a
candidate for minister, elder, or deacon to declare a “scruple,” or an
objection based on conscience. The examining body must then decide whether that
departure from the standards could be permitted, or whether it would violate an
essential of Reformed faith and polity, and could not be allowed.
The
assembly adopted that authoritative interpretation in response to
recommendations from the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity, and Purity
of the PC(USA).
But the
GAPJC, in its Feb. 11 ruling, determined that the “fidelity and chastity”
standard is “a mandatory standard that cannot be waived.”
John Knox
Presbytery, in response, passed the overture on Feb. 16 asking the General
Assembly, which will meet in June, to adopt another authoritative
interpretation.
That
proposed authoritative interpretation states that the procedure for granting
scruples would “apply equally to all ordination standards” of the PC(USA).
It states
that the Book of Order “requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful
consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure 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).”
This
proposal would not differentiate between departures of conscience related to belief
and those related to behavior, as the GAPJC decision did.
In the time
since the GAPJC issued its ruling, reaction has come from across the spectrum
of the PC(USA).
Groups such
as the Presbyterian Coalition and Presbyterians for Renewal have applauded the
court’s decision — with the Coalition, for example, calling it “very helpful.”
But those
who want the “fidelity and chastity” standard dropped from the PC(USA)’s
constitution, contending that it pushes aside the gifts for ministry of gays
and lesbians who live in committed relationships, have renewed their calls for
change in the church.
The
co-moderators of Covenant Network of Presbyterians called the decision
“profoundly disappointing” and “deeply hurtful.” More Light Presbyterians declared it “time
for this policy and church law to be removed for the sake of the soul of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). And That All May Freely Serve said the ruling
“perpetuates mistaken and destructive prejudice” against gays and lesbians.