A church court has ruled that San Francisco presbytery made a mistake in allowing Lisa Larges, a lesbian who has been trying for years to be ordained as a minister, to declare a conscientious objection to the ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) before she had been examined as a candidate for ministry.

            Larges had declared a conscientious objection to the requirement that those being ordained practice fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity if they are single. In a statement she presented to the presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for Ministry, Larges declared that requirement to be “a mar upon the church and a stumbling block to its mission.”

            But the synod court ruled that the presbytery could not consider Larges’ objection at that stage of the process, because “the examination for ordination is the proper time for presbytery to determine whether or not a candidate’s departure (from the standards) constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity.”

            Larges is one of the first to test a new authoritative interpretation, adopted by the General Assembly in 2006 and stemming from the work of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the PC(USA). That authoritative interpretation allows candidates for ordination to declare “scruples,” or departures of conscience from the standards, and their ordaining body can grant a waiver, i.e., “extend forbearance,” if it determines that the departure does not violate an essential of Reformed faith or polity.

            On January 15, 2008, after discussing the matter in closed session, San Francisco presbytery voted 167-151 to approve Larges as “ready for examination, with departure” – meaning the presbytery could later examine her as a candidate, asking questions about theology and faith, while accepting that she had already declared a scruple, or departure from the standards, on the “fidelity and chastity” standard.

            Some ministers from the presbytery appealed that decision – and the synod court ruling has now nullified that vote. The synod court also ruled that the presbytery’s debate and vote in January, 2008, did not constitute an examination of Larges and that it violated a requirement that those being examined appear personally before the presbytery at that meeting and make a brief statement of personal faith.

            “Neither the candidate nor the candidate’s Statement of Faith was presented or made available to the Presbyters at their meeting of January 15, 2008,” the synod court ruled.

            The synod did not sustain a series of complaints raised involving decisions made by the presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for Ministry, ruling that it “has no jurisdiction to review the actions of a committee of presbytery.”

            And the court did not rule on the substance of Larges’ declaration of departure.  In other words, it did not take a position on whether or not declaring an objection to the “fidelity and chastity” clause does violate an essential of Reformed faith and polity.  So that question probably will come before the PC(USA) courts again in the future, whether through Larges’ candidacy or someone else’s.

            The synod court did admonish San Francisco presbytery “to faithfully execute its constitutional obligations to the entire church to enforce mandatory church-wide ordination standards” and to be mindful of that if Larges is examined as a candidate for ministry.

            And it admonished the presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for Ministry to meet its covenantal obligations for any candidates it considers who want to depart from the mandatory standards. A previous decision from the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission – the PC(USA)’s highest court – held in a case involving the Presbytery of Northern New England that when an individual or governing body “threatens to move from verbal dissent to active disobedience, it is the obligation of the covenant community to seek to prevent the dissenting party from falling into contumacy. This begins as an act of pastoral care, but may become an act of church discipline.”

            The synod court ruled that “the larger church depends on each presbytery to protect the interests of the whole. The mandatory ordination standards are an important part of this covenant.”

            The court also declined to remove Larges from the presbytery’s roll of candidates, saying it lacks authority to do so.

            While not ordained as a minister, Larges has been a fixture in the life of the national denomination for years: speaking publicly, attending meetings, continuing to push through her work as minister coordinator with That All May Freely Serve to allow gays and lesbians to be ordained.  She also is a deacon at Noe Valley Ministry Presbyterian church in San Francisco.

            She graduated from San Francisco Theological Seminary in 1989. Originally from Minnesota, she was a candidate for ministry in the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area – and in 1991 she informed the Twin Cities presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for Ministry of her sexual orientation. In 1992, however, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission – the highest court in the PC(USA) – ruled against Larges, stating that under church law “unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination.”

            Larges later moved her candidacy to San Francisco presbytery, meeting with the Committee on Preparation for Ministry there, which voted in 2004 not to recommend her for ordination. But the presbytery allowed her to keep her status as a candidate for ordination – aware that the PC(USA)’s debate over ordaining gays and lesbians was ongoing.

            Indeed, the PC(USA)’s 173 presbyteries are in the midst of voting on whether to remove the “fidelity and chastity” language from the denomination’s constitution altogether. The vote appears to be definitely closer than the 73.4 % to 26.6 % margin the last time it was tried in 2001, but still may fall short.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Your Responses (12)

Subscribe to this comment's feed