"In a 5-5 tie, the Synod of the Sun PJC has refused to correct Mission Presbytery for admitting an openly lesbian woman to candidacy for ordination to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament.After repeated deadlocked votes by the PJC that could not break the tie, the complaint against the presbytery was not upheld."
What possible reason can there be for refusing to tell Mission Presbytery that a woman who admits living in a sexual relationship with another woman should not be admitted to candidacy for ordination under the current provisions of the Book of Order? How can the Synod PJC be deadlocked on this issue?
Meanwhile Presbyweb reported over the weekend that Cliff Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk of the PCUSA, sent a letter to the Stated Clerk of each presbytery expressing his concern about potential resolutions pending in some presbyteries relating to PUP, Per Capita and Property in which he reminded them of his recent Opinions and Musing. (Link is to Presbyweb which requires subscription or trial registration.) Apparently that letter is prompted by rumblings from Sacramento Presbytery.
Since Kirkpatrick is busy divesting himself of opinions, he should also address this case and publicly encourage presbyteries to uphold the ordination requirements of the Book of Order which he says are not changed by the passage of the PUP recommendations. How about an Idle Thought, Stream of Conciousness or even a mere Random Brain Wave of the Stated Clerk in response to this situation in Mission Presbytery?
The withdrawal of the Kirk of the Hills church in Tulsa, the recent move by First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge to sue the presbytery of South Louisiana and the PCUSA to remove the "trust" cloud on the title of its property, and the Sacramento resolutions are responses to the perceived denominational failure and lack of will to enforce the ordination standards. If that issue is not addressed, Kirkpatrick can expect more resolutions, overtures and lawsuits and less Per Capita and Property for the denomination.
UPDATE: Will Spotts reports that the Sacramento Presbytery passed the four resolutions that prompted Kirkpatrick's letter to the stated clerks. There may be an appeal to the Synod of the Pacific by dissenters.
The withdrawal of the Kirk of the Hills church in Tulsa, the recent move by First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge to sue the presbytery of South Louisiana and the PCUSA to remove the "trust" cloud on the title of its property, and the Sacramento resolutions are responses to the perceived denominational failure and lack of will to enforce the ordination standards. If that issue is not addressed, Kirkpatrick can expect more resolutions, overtures and lawsuits and less Per Capita and Property for the denomination.
UPDATE: Will Spotts reports that the Sacramento Presbytery passed the four resolutions that prompted Kirkpatrick's letter to the stated clerks. There may be an appeal to the Synod of the Pacific by dissenters.
12 comments:
Just curious. Does PCUSA indemnify it's leaders from personal exposure to liability in the event of property lawsuits from congregations that may come as a provable direct result of a leader's decision or action? And if that decision or action is in direct violation of the BOO, would that put their personal neck on the liability line?
Thanks
PG,
I imagine that the PCUSA carries some type of officer/director liability insurance coverage for this type of liability. Most corporations and non-profits and churches do.
But I don't know for sure that they do and if so what types of liability are covered. Maybe one of my readers can tell us.
My presbytery was involved in a Synod PJC suit in which a member of the presbytery sued our CPM for advancing a woman who happened to be a lesbian inquirer to candidate status. CPM won. There is precedent for this.
A very careful reading of the BOO shows that there is no prohibition to advancing GLBT persons to candidacy, according to the Synod PJC. She is now duly ordained, by the way.
(This was three years ago. PUP had nothing to do with it.)
I don't think it's right to advance someone to candidate status if that person is ineligible for ordination at the time of the advancement, even if there is no specific prohibition regarding advancement to that status in the BOO. It's this type of legal pettifoggery that is driving many out of the denomination.
The woman in this case is living openly in a same sex relationship and is not celibate. That clearly makes her ineligible for ordination, unless the PUP in fact has changed the BOO and so would allow a "scruple" to be declared later. But our Stated Clerk and denominational leaders have assured us that is not the case, haven't they?
If a lesbian was ordained in your synod prior to the PUP, then she must been celibate at that time under the BOO requirements and thus eligible for advancement and ordination. The facts in the Mission Presbytery case are distinguishable from that situation.
Perhaps, but please inderstand, QG, that for many people the status of one's sex life doesn't matter. A lesbian, is a lesbian, is a lesbian.
I don't know if she was celibate or not. I only know she was called by God.
(I know many people who read your blog will disagree with that sentiment of mine. I'm okay with it. People of integrity sometimes disagree.)
Chessehead:
I'm glad we can discuss these issues in a civil way in this forum, but here's the real issue:
It does not matter what one's attractions lean toward, in regards to ordination in our church. Inclinations or urges are not barriers to ordination or we would ALL be in trouble, would we not? :)
Actions are the issue here, by observable public behavior. This candidate in question is not living in accord with what our church has repeatedly said is acceptable conduct for ethical sexual behavior. You may not like that standard, but that is irrelevant to the issue here. The rule is clear for us all--heterosexual marriage is the only venue for sexual expression, by the Constitution and case law of the church.
Breaking or blurring the clear constitutional standards of the church does no one any favors--least of all the progressives--it just leads to mistrust and anger. Manipulating the standards for whatever the desired outcome is not ethical and it does not honor God.
If the progressives that I know and respect want to change the church in a proper way, then they will convince the majority through Scripture and plain reason, not back-room politics and intruigues.
Classical Presbyterian: It might surprise you to know that we agree on many things. You are right that blurring the constitutional standards is not a good thing.
My gripe with this particular standard is the way it is "enforced" rather selectively. If the standards for ordination were enforced as they are actually written...well, I personally don't know anyone who would qualify for ordination.
Do most Presbyterians know what things our confessions call sin, and how many of them are committed (un-repentent-ly) each and every day? This is supposed to be at the heart of the standard for living a life of purity--sins the confessions recognize. There is a whole lot to the standards of ordination that nobody talks about because they're not as sexy as fidelity and chastity. Somehow it all got boiled down to who sleeps with whom.
That's just wrong to me. It seems the net for keeping out the "bad fish" has holes that are far too big, and in the wrong places.
Just one crazy progressive's opinion...
I agree that the standards are selectively enforced and that we have become obsessed with the sexual sins to the exclusion of others.
There's no question that there is some "don't ask, don't tell" going on out there. For example, I bet very few PNCs ask single pastors pointed questions about their sex lives. And I bet even fewer ask a married pastor about their fidelity. Who wants to go there? Most of us don't. Some COM Examinations committees will ask about sexual behavior and many won't.
But when a candidate whose behavior clearly violates the ordination standards is presented, then I think you have to uphold the standards and tell them they are not qualified.
Thanks, Cheese for engaging the debate. We can certainly agree that people of integrity can disagree!
QG, I apologize for hijacking your comments here. I didn't intend to.
As you were...
Cheese,you didn't "hijack" the comments. I'm pleased that you felt comfortable presenting your views at my place. This is the kind of dialogue we all need more of.
A person who is a candidate is not necessarily ordained and so the constitutional provisions don't apply yet. While I am not for her ordination, the case was probably premature. The moment a Presbytery certifies a Candidate ready to recieve a call is the moment when the Constitutional requirements of Ordination apply and legal action is appropriate. That being said it is inappropriate for a Presbytery to advance a person through the preparation process who is unwilling to conform to the Constitutional Standards of Ordination or who can not affirm the ordination vows. Though it is inappropriate, it is not illegal until the moment the person is certified ready to receive a call.
Timothy Smith
Timothy,
Thanks for your comments. I understand your point about the difference between the action being "inappropriate" and "illegal". I'd make the anology to the concept in secular law that the controversy in Mission Presbytery is not "ripe" for decision under the BOO until they try to actually ordain her. We don't have any public rationale for the split decision, but your analysis is probably correct insofar as those voting not to instruct Mission Presbytery to withdraw its action.
As a lawyer, I appreciate the distinction.
But I know that to most of our members this kind of action reveals a determination to defy the constitutional requirements and the non-action of the synod PJC is interpreted as encouragement to do so. This is the sort of thing that has destroyed the trust and confidence of so many in the denomination.
Post a Comment