Regarding Constitutional Services Advisory Opinion #22: A Response
Part Two
By Gordon Fish and James R. Tony
In Part I, we addressed the inadequacy of the newly issued Advisory Opinion #22 issued by the Office of the
General Assembly (OGA). This opinion relates to the Authoritative Interpretation adopted by the 218th GA
(2008) to remove all “further force or effect” of previous authoritative interpretations regarding ordained service
by those in homosexual relationships.
Part II: Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 and the limits to freedom of conscience.
In Part II we consider the Advisory Opinion’s approach to the second Authoritative Interpretation (AI) made by
the 218th GA. This is an additional interpretation of G-6.0108. It explicitly affirms and adds to the AI made by
the 217th GA (2006) known as the Peace, Unity and Purity (PUP) AI.
The Authoritative Interpretation states:
…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’s inability to perform the
constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments). (GA Item
5-12)
The Office of the General Assembly expresses this opinion: “We believe this modifies the 2008 GAPJC
decision of Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh, in that the scrupling of either belief or practice is now allowed.”
Neither the GA PJC nor any of the AIs use the term “scruple.” It is not a constitutional term, and its use creates
confusion.
Furthermore, this Advisory Opinion states only the obvious: candidates are free to agree or disagree, like or
dislike, any or all of the provisions of the Constitution: those that apply to faith and those that apply to behavior.
Even G-6.0106b. The GA PJC decision in Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh (Bush) permits freedom of
conscience for candidates to express disagreement with either kind of provision of the Constitution—belief or
practice. The distinction made by the court is that candidates are not free to state their intention not to comply,
or to act out that intention to refuse to comply, with any plain and explicit requirement of the Constitution.
The Bush decision does not depend on a distinction between belief and practice. That mistaken distinction is
introduced by the new AI adopted by the 218th GA and is not corrected by the present Advisory Opinion.
Here is what Bush actually says:
As finally adopted by the General Assembly, the Authoritative Interpretation [of 2006] does not equate
“polity” with “behavior.” Nevertheless, the church has required those who aspire to ordained office to
conform their actions, though not necessarily their beliefs or opinions, to certain standards, in those
contexts in which the church has deemed conformity to be necessary or essential. Section G-6.0106b
contains a provision where conformity is required by church officers “to live either in fidelity within the
covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or in chastity in singleness.” The church
has decided to single out this particular manner of life standard and require churchwide conformity to it
for all ordained church officers. Therefore, the specific “fidelity and chastity” standard in G-6.0106b
stands in contrast to the provisions of G-6.0106a, including those concerning faith, discipleship, belief
and manner of life in the church and the world, and also the remainder of G-6.0106b. The candidate and
examining body must follow G-6.0108 in reaching a determination as to whether the candidate for office
has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity, but that determination does not rest on
distinguishing “belief” and “behavior,” and does not permit departure from the “fidelity and chastity”
requirement found in G-6.0106b. Accordingly that portion of SPJC decision that stated: “no presbytery
may grant an exception to any mandatory church wide behavioral ordination standard,” was correct. We
agree with the SPJC that, “Under our polity, violations of behavioral standards are to be addressed
through repentance and reconciliation, not by exception or exemption. The freedom of conscience
granted in G-6.0108 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
fidelity and chastity provision may only be changed by a constitutional amendment. Until that occurs,
individual candidates, officers, examining and governing bodies must adhere to it. (emphases added)
The “nevertheless” means that even if “belief” and “practice” are equated and disagreement is permitted for
both, it would not change the mandatory requirement that candidates and governing bodies conform to the
“necessary and essential” conduct standard set in G-6.0106b. The governing body’s “determination [of the
fitness of a candidate] does not rest on distinguishing ‘belief’ and ‘behavior,’ and does not permit departure
from the ‘fidelity and chastity’ requirement found in G-6.0106b.” The Advisory Opinion ignores this entire
paragraph.
The Bush decision says plainly that that the requirement of G-6.0106b can “only be changed by a constitutional
amendment.” The Advisory Opinion omits mention of that provision of the Bush decision. The new G-6.0108
AI does not explicitly or implicitly mention reversing that provision. Nor could it.
We note that Bush is pointedly omitted from the list of GA PJC decisions left unchanged by the AI which voids
the parts of the decisions based on the 1978/9 and 1993 AIs. Yet, Bush contains no reference to those voided
AIs and it certainly does specify in very clear terms the requirement of G-6.0106b.
It is settled Presbyterian law that governing bodies are not permitted to provide an exemption from the plain
requirement to be governed by our polity and abide by our discipline – and that law is not dependent on Bush
alone, but also on other GA PJC decisions in Maxwell v Pittsburgh (UPC, 1975), Simmons v. Suwanee(GAPJC
194-7), and Londonderry v. Northern New England (GAPJC 213-2).
No law of the church forbids candidates from disagreeing with any behavioral requirement of the constitution
(“scrupling”). The church only requires intention and action that demonstrate compliance with the ordination
requirements of the constitution. Therefore, Advisory Opinion #22 fails to answer the main question raised by
the intent of this new AI:
Are presbyteries and sessions now free to permit the ordination of unrepentant, sexually active
practicing homosexuals (USAPHs)?
It is widely known that such a candidate resides in the presbytery that sent this overture to GA. This Advisory
Opinion provides little in the way of guidance. But the Bush decision is clear: candidates who will not promise
to abide by the written requirements of the Constitution are not eligible for ordination in the PC (USA) at this
time.
The meaning and implications of the last sentence of the new AI of G-6.0108 are potentially very serious, but
that sentence is unaddressed by the Advisory Opinion.
The GA PJC is the authoritative body from which to expect clarity on the meaning and effect of these changes
brought about by the 218th GA. At least two ordination standards cases (Twin Cities and San Francisco) are
already pending in Synod PJCs and will likely reach the GA PJC. Advisory Opinions have no constitutional
authority. But they are advisory and many Presbyterians will be depending on General Assembly offices for
guidance on how to proceed. A clearer, more comprehensive Advisory Opinion would help the church.
Our next installment will take up the biggest missing piece of all: What is the meaning of the wording proposed
as the replacement for G-6.0106b? On that subject, “Advisory Opinion #22” is completely silent.