July 8, 2010

Dear Plains and Peaks Presbyterians:

We are writing this to you from the 219^th General Assembly in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Undoubtedly, this will be regarded as one of the most significant assemblies in recent history. It has been presented with many challenging issues, and has not backed down from any of them. Our commissioners – Nancy D'Ippolito, Sue Hoenshell-Brown, Bob Powell, and Susie Reed – and our Young Adult Advisory Delegate, Luke Black, have served you, the church, and the Lord faithfully and well.

As with all important issues, those debated here have generated much controversy and anxiety, along with misinformation about the content and meaning of what was adopted. Of particular concern to many in our presbytery was the action of the Assembly to approve, by a vote of 373-323 (53%-46%) an overture for consideration by the presbyteries that would alter the standards for ordination found in our Constitution.

The Assembly's action, if ratified by vote in a majority of presbyteries, would replace the current language of G-6.0106b (our “fidelity and chastity” provision) with standards that are drawn from the long history of the Presbyterian Church. The new provision reads,

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

This particular amendment is both distinct from and constitutionally superior to the amendment rejected by presbyteries after the last assembly. Unlike the last proposed amendment, this calls for a rigorous examination and determination by the examining body based on external authorities (Scripture, confessions, constitutional questions of office), while also looking at the personal qualities of the candidate's calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for office.

The amendment seeks to restore the church to the historic Presbyterian model of the Adopting Act of 1729, to which the church has returned time and again when faced with conflicts over ordination standards. Those conflicts were as intensely fought as ours have been, with similar kinds of appeals from both sides – on the one hand, to external authorities like scripture and tradition; but on the other to the undeniable experiences of call, giftedness, and responsible preparation. The amendment approved by the Assembly lifts up both objective and subjective standards, and requires that the examining body apply them to candidates individually.

This was the practice of the church, with rare exception, from 1729 to 1975. In 1975, a liberal GA Permanent Judicial Commission, overreached its authority to declare that a single doctrinal standard – the ordination of women – constituted an “essential tenet of the Reformed faith” to which all candidates must subscribe. Three years later, a conservative General Assembly adopted a single behavioral standard – unrepentant, self-affirmed, homosexual behavior – as an absolute bar to ordination, with the force of an essential tenet of the faith. Neither the GAPJC nor the General Assembly had the authority to declare an essential tenet, which is a power reserved to the whole church through the process of adopting confessional statements. (The ordination of women was written into our confessions in 1991.)

In other words, the amendment under consideration by the presbyteries is not a departure from historic Presbyterian practices, but rather a return to them.

Would the amendment permit some sessions or presbyteries to ordain self-affirmed, active homosexuals? Probably, and that may very well stop the discussion for many in our presbytery. But any such ordination should happen only when it has been determined by the examining body that the person's theology, character, call, gifts, and suitability for ministry supports it. The same is true when any other part of the candidate's life and character is considered, because “Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000).”

On the other hand, the amendment would not prohibit a session or presbytery from applying the behavioral standards of scripture or our confessions in the examination of particular candidates. The same examination requirements for admission to office as an elder or membership in a presbytery would apply as they do now. “Scruples” must still be declared and defended. Examinations would still be subject to review by higher governing bodies on appeal in a remedial case. No session or presbytery would be required to receive, ordain, or install persons who did not satisfy their examinations, provided the judgment was based on the areas subject to examination (theology, character, call, gifts, suitability for ministry).

We will surely have a vigorous debate over this proposed amendment as we consider its ratification. It is our hope that this debate would be conducted with the same mutual respect, civility, and care with which our own commissioners, and the whole Assembly, has considered their action today.

In Christ's Service,

Daniel M. Saperstein,  Executive Presbyer

Lynn A. Smit, Stated Clerk