This past weekend, two presbyteries voted against Amendment B – the Book of Order amendment to G6.0106b that would have removed the fidelity\/chastity rule – making it easier to ordain lesbian and gay people as deacons, elders or ministers in the Presbyterian Church (USA).\u00a0 This time around the vote was much closer than in the past, indicating a shift in cultural and scriptural beliefs on the subject.<\/p>\n
I’m going to write two articles on this – this one and one to come.\u00a0 Today’s article is about where we are left (in my personal interpretation) by the combination of this amendment failing and the changes to Authoritative Interpretations made by the 218th General Assembly in 2008.\u00a0 The next article will be on where we should go from here politically, with my recommendations for the progressive, conservative and moderate factions.<\/p>\n
The 218th General Assembly took three important actions related to ordination standards:<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0 Removal of all prior Authoritative Interpretations.<\/strong><\/p>\n As part of the same resolution that sent Amendment B to the presbyteries, the General Assembly stated:<\/p>\n Interpretive statements concerning ordained service of homosexual church members by the 190th General Assembly (1978) of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and the 119th General Assembly (1979) of the Presbyterian Church in the United States and all subsequent affirmations thereof, have no further force or effect.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That has the net effect of throwing out all prohibitions on gay ordination other than G6-0106b.\u00a0 It also throws out all PJC precedents that are not based on G6-0106b.\u00a0 We are left with the Authoritative Interpretation on ordination standards that was part of the PUP report, stating that ordination standards are not defined nationally, but that each ordination decision is a local decision and individual to the person in question.\u00a0 Plus, there is one new AI ….<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0 Authoritative Interpretation on ordination standards<\/strong><\/p>\n The General Assembly passed a new Authoritative Interpretation:<\/p>\n That the 218th General Assembly (2008) to approve the following authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 of the Book of Order<\/em>:<\/p>\n the requirements of G-6.0108 apply equally to all ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Section G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard 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\u2019s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some call this a codification of “local option”.\u00a0 I think it’s simpler than that.\u00a0 It’s a codification of “individual option” – the classical Presbyterian idea that each ordination decision is made based on the individual to be ordained.\u00a0 Each of us is sinful – none of us are perfect.\u00a0 The question that Sessions and Presbyteries face is this – can this person do the job, is there a call, and are this person’s particular sins so heinous as to preclude their ordination?<\/p>\n It’s important to remember that each presbytery or session gets to make this decision based on the candidate in front of them.\u00a0 And it’s also important to remember that this is done in person – with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n In a GA PJC case<\/a> from earlier this year, the PJC made it clear that G-6.0106b was a mandatory standard in the Book of Order.\u00a0 The decision practically warned that any future cases involving a clear departure from this standard (should it survive, which it has) would preclude ordination.<\/p>\n It is my sincere hope that this AI will stop the “fly-over” disciplinary cases that have been filed by the most extreme conservative members of the denomination.\u00a0 Some cases have been filed by people who do not know the candidate, did not attend the meeting, and are at most only peripherally affected by the ordination decision.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0 Amendment B<\/strong> b.\u00a0 I’ve only included the G-6.0106b amendment – there were corresponding amendments to G-14 regarding instructing Candidates on the rules.<\/p>\n This is the amendment that failed.\u00a0 It was closer than ever (at this point 69-89 with voting continuing) but it still did not pass.\u00a0 In my second post, I will talk about the climate that exists today to cause this near-success, and what that means for the future.<\/p>\n At this point, we need to turn to case studies.<\/p>\n Case 1 – a straight candidate for an ordained position, who is married and faithful to the spouse but unchaste at some point in the past (before marriage, perhaps even with the current spouse).\u00a0 It is highly unlikely that this candidate will be asked about prior sexual practice.\u00a0 It is also highly unlikely that the candidate will self-acknowledge this sin, or even consider it a sin.\u00a0 If the issue does not come up, this person is ordainable.\u00a0 If the issue does come up in the examination, the examining body would be required to decide whether or not the sin is a sufficient departure from standards.\u00a0 Other bodies\/people could only challenge through a disciplinary case alleging continuing conduct or lack of repentance.<\/p>\n Case 2 – a straight candidate for an ordained position is either married and unfaithful or single and engaging in sex.\u00a0 This is a continuing practice.\u00a0 It is highly unlikely that this candidate will be asked about prior or current sexual practice, unless someone has first-hand or hearsay knowledge.\u00a0 It is also highly unlikely that the candidate will self-acknowledge this sin, or even consider it a sin.\u00a0 If the issue does come up, the person is not ordainable.\u00a0 Other bodies\/people could challenge this decision by a disciplinary case alleging conduct, or via a remedial case alleging insufficient examination.\u00a0 As a practical matter, the remedial case could only be filed by a church member or other session against a session, or a member of presbytery or other presbytery against a presbytery.\u00a0 The immediately higher governing body could also investigate and take administrative action.<\/p>\n Case 3 – a homosexual person who is celibate.\u00a0 It doesn’t matter how it comes up, only that the celibacy is on the record of an examination.\u00a0 This person is ordainable.\u00a0 Other bodies\/people could only challenge this decision by a disciplinary case alleging that the candidate lied about celibacy – if that were to happen it might be beyond the pale of what Presbyterians would accept from an investigation given that it would require proof of sex (people would be mad that privacy was invaded to the degree necessary to allege this).<\/p>\n Case 4 – a homosexual person who is not celibate, but who is not questioned about the issue during examination.\u00a0 This person is ordainable, though there will be a disconnect between his\/her personal beliefs or practices and the Book of Order.\u00a0 Other bodies\/people could challenge this decision by a disciplinary case alleging conduct (also very ugly), or via a remedial case alleging insufficient examination.\u00a0 See above for who could file a remedial case.<\/p>\n Case 5 – a homosexual person who is not celibate, and who is questioned during examination and makes a statement as such.\u00a0 This also fits the case where a homosexual candidate is self-affirming of practice.\u00a0 This person is not ordainable.\u00a0 Other bodies\/people could challenge this decision by a disciplinary case (based on self-acknowledged conduct) or a remedial case alleging violation of G-6.0106b.\u00a0 This is the biggie – and the likely test case.\u00a0 I believe that no matter what the presbytery or synod do, the GA PJC will rule that the person is not ordainable – based on their early warning in a prior case.<\/p>\n Case 6 – a person who states that they refuse to abide by G-6.0106b when making ordination decisions for other people.\u00a0 This person is ordainable or not, depending on the ordaining body’s decision.\u00a0 Other bodies\/people could challenge this decision by a remedial case alleging violation of G-6.0106b.\u00a0 I believe that such a case would ultimately fail at the General Assembly level.<\/p>\n Case 7 – a person who states that they refuse to ordain others who are elected who would violate G-6.0106b.\u00a0 This person is NOT ordainable normally as a solo pastor, based on the new Authoritative Interpretation, because the person is unable to perform the constitutional function of ordaining a local officer.\u00a0 I believe that special arrangements could be made with a temporary leave from their position and a Stated Supply in the extremely unlikely case that a solo pastor with such convictions would be leading a congregation that chooses to elect such an officer.\u00a0 However, it would show a serious problem between the church and pastor and should come to the Committee on Ministry’s attention.\u00a0 There are many other roles that this person could perform in an ordained role (pastor or associate pastor on a multi-clergy staff, teaching, mission, etc) that would not cause this problem.\u00a0 If this ever happens, it’s gonna be a mess.<\/p>\n It should be noted that nothing above REQUIRES that a governing body find that a person is ordainable.\u00a0 I believe that case 3 would be an interesting case if an elder-elect were refused ordination solely on G-6.0106b grounds – I don’t know which way the GA PJC would rule but I believe it would rule that the person should be ordained.\u00a0 In all of the other cases where the person is ordainable the ordaining body has sufficient latitude in their decision to decide to ordain or not without challenge.<\/p>\n
\nYou can read Kamagra reviews to know about the effectiveness of VigRx can read reviews of the users who post their opinions on the web generic levitra sale browse around this storefront<\/a> page. These are the first thing that you notice when you find a stray capsule. sildenafil generic viagra<\/a> But it is not true; men may feel tired and daily fluctuations in http:\/\/www.devensec.com\/forms\/Applic_-_LEVEL_2.pdf<\/a> cialis cheap generic sex desire. Within months of continuous use, you can absolutely feel the great improvement http:\/\/www.devensec.com\/sustain\/eidis-updates\/IndustrialSymbiosisupdateJune2012.pdf<\/a> purchase viagra online of your lifeless thin hair, making it healthier, stronger and thicker. <\/span>
\nThe General Assembly sent to the presbyteries the following amendment to G-6.0106b:<\/p>\nThose 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. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and\/or installed as deacons elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.<\/del> Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and\/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate\u2019s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\nSo Where are we now?<\/h2>\n