Presbyweb posted the Stated Clerk's Advisory Opinion on the new Authoritative Interpretation passed by the 217th General Assembly. That's recommendation #5, as amended, of the Report of the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity (PUP) for you Presbypolity-types. I linked it, but it is a subscription website (based on contributions--it's well worth checking out).
UPDATE: Thanks to Stewart, who shared this link to the Advisory Opinion that is available from the PCUSA website. I looked for it yesterday, but didn't find it.
Within 12 hours of its release, two critiques of it also appeared on Presbyweb. I read the whole thing and summarize it thusly: Ordination standards have not changed, probably, but please don't deliberately set up a test case for the ecclesiastical courts because that would be divisive. This doesn't seem very helpful to me.
I'm pretty good at LegalSpeak, but not so good at ChurchSpeak, and the AO is a combination of both. I invite my fellow Presbybloggers who have read the Advisory Ruling to chime in. Do you think this AO clarifies anything?
UPDATE: Thanks to Stewart, who shared this link to the Advisory Opinion that is available from the PCUSA website. I looked for it yesterday, but didn't find it.
Within 12 hours of its release, two critiques of it also appeared on Presbyweb. I read the whole thing and summarize it thusly: Ordination standards have not changed, probably, but please don't deliberately set up a test case for the ecclesiastical courts because that would be divisive. This doesn't seem very helpful to me.
I'm pretty good at LegalSpeak, but not so good at ChurchSpeak, and the AO is a combination of both. I invite my fellow Presbybloggers who have read the Advisory Ruling to chime in. Do you think this AO clarifies anything?
7 comments:
No, anymore than the PUP report cleared anything up.
It is clear enough -- we still have the standard on paper, but we'd better not expect it to be enforced. I mean, it's like ordaining bankers . . . it's the call of the ordaining body to determine whether the banker in question is in violation of the teaching on usury . . . HOW HELPFUL.
Similarly, the only cases that should be reviewed either administratively or judicially would be the extraordinary exception . . . which, if the particular lapse were widespread enough, it would then not qualify???
This interpretation pretty clearly indicates we have standards . . . really . . . we do . . ..
The more alarming thing is that I'm not sure that anything in these documents prevents any other departure . . . say for example, Mission Presbytery were to decide to ordain (famously atheist) Dr. Jensen as a minister. Would that be a departure if Mission Presbytery didn't consider it one? Isn't that the same as ordaining a banker?
Hmmm. As far as lawyer-speak and church-speak are concerned, I would really prefer that "[our] yes be yes and [our] no be no". But we're not likely to get that in a world where it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.
It all depends on the PJC, and history does not comfort us here...
Read Full Court Presby's analysis. He speaks for me on this one.
How about one gutteral growl to show my opinion of the new AO:
GRRRRRRRR..........
(Sorry, but I'm not ot a happy camper this week!)
Is this the same advisory opinion made available to the public at http://www.pcusa.org/constitutionalservices/ad-op/note18.pdf?
What makes it difficult for me to determine whether the Advisory Opinion adds anything is the lack in the AO of a description of the requests for it.
I have the impression that there were simply a number of voices asking for the Stated Clerk to chime in, but I don't know what was presented to the Stated Clerk as the area or areas where there was an alleged lack of clarity to be resolved by an AO.
I understand that the PUP report and authoritative interpretation do not say what some Presbyterians wish to have been said, but I agree with the Clerk that the meaning is clear. So I am puzzled about what the AO actually addresses.
I think the PUP report and the authoritative interpretation adopted by the Assembly do chart out a path through our morass -- a path which is consistent with the way Presbyterians have handled ordination decisions historically.
Regarding your question: "Do you think this AO clarifies anything?"
Not really... and neither does the AI it's trying to explain... but I'm not sure that's the issue.
As one of my profs many years ago put it, most conciliar documents are not really designed to say anything. Rather, they're designed to build consensus and support unity by containing certain phrases and ideas that all the different groups can recognize and embrace. Whether people can agree with the "message" of the document is less important than whether people can find something in the document they can affirm. Whether all those parts make sense in the end is not really important.
The PUP report seems to be a master of that kind of unity building ambiguity. For one group, there's language about conformity to the constitution. For another, there's language about respecting the integrity of particular governing bodies. And it's a terrible breach of etiquette to refuse to support it until the document has a consistent message about just how those relate.
We won't get clarity about how it will work out until we get on down the road and see how it will work out.
Post a Comment