Top Ten Issues before the Assembly, Part 4

Disclaimer:  The opinions in this post, as with all posts on this blog, represent the author's opinion only, and are not intended to represent the opinion of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution or any other person or entity.

Number 7: Ordination Standards and Freedom of Conscience

It just wouldn't be a General Assembly without an ordination standards controversy.  The adoption of amendment 10-A in 2011 lifted the categorical exclusion from ordered ministry of those who did not meet the "fidelity and chastity" standard of former G-6.0106b.  10-A restored the church to the same standards of ordination that were in effect for over 250 years -- the consideration of a candidate's manner of life on an individual basis under scripture and the confessions.  In the polarized PCUSA, however, its effects have been magnified by both sides.  Many on both the left and the right regard it as open season for the ordination of gay and lesbian candidates. Others regard it as merely a transitional step on the way to the mandatory inclusion of gays and lesbians.

Which brings us to this year's Assembly.  Historically, the Assembly after a groundbreaking Assembly such as GA 219 is often a "backlash" Assembly.  The "losing" side marshals its forces, pushes for the election of like-minded commissioners and lobbies for a repeal of the offending amendment or policy. This year, however, it appears that the right wing of the church is uncharacteristically in disarray.  Some see the passage of 10-A as a Waterloo moment, and have adopted alternative strategies -- dismissal, realignment, or a freedom-of-conscience firewall.  Others have adopted a stay-fight-win "never say die" attitude.  Yet others have simply surrendered.

The overtures coming to Assembly Committee 7 on Church Orders and Ministry reflect this diversity.  On the right wing, some seek simply to restore the former fidelity and chastity standard in various forms (Stockton, Central Florida, Washington); others seek to finesse the Constitution into requiring or allowing the adoption of specific ordination standards (South Alabama, Foothills); yet others seek to secure and protect the "freedom of conscience" of examining bodies (Stockton II, Santa Barbara).  The last of these are particularly troublesome as they seek to establish a "right of conscience" for councils of the church potentially to act contrary to the Constitution without being subject to review or remediation.  Such a right does not exist in our polity.  Freedom of conscience within limits exists for individuals (G-2.0105), but even then, the ultimate remedy for an unassuaged conscience on a matter deemed essential to faith or polity is voluntary departure from the church, a power that does not apply to councils.

On the left, two overtures (Genesee Valley, Albany) seek to restrict questions posed candidates being examined.  This is an unfortunate attempt to undermine the spirit of 10-A which restored freedom to examining bodies to establish and evaluate candidates on an individual basis.  What is odd is that it tries to appropriate the principle of individual examination to categorically restrict certain kinds of questions, which in my opinion, at least, seems self-contradictory.

And, of course, there are the "Rodney King" overtures asking "Can't we all just get along?"  My guess is that, in the end, these will prevail.  There isn't enough unity and passion on the right to reverse 10-A, and the swing votes in the middle are generally reluctant to reverse an action before it has had a chance to be tested.

Next:  Biennial Assembly Review Report