|
Written by Edward Koster*
|
|
Monday, 16 June 2008 05:00 |
|
| | |
Trust is increasingly raised as an issue in our denomination. For instance, those who oppose the proposed Form of Government are saying that where trust is a problem, as it is in the church now, we should not reduce the rules under which we operate in favor of greater discretion.
I believe trust is a greater issue than that. I believe there is a breakdown in trust in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) so great that it interferes with everything we do.
Though distrust is now approaching a critical mass, it has been a problem for decades. Over the years our Constitution has grown by accretion, frequently because of concerns that some are not doing the “right” things, or, perhaps, not doing things right. Since the only means we have to require that others do something in a particular way is to put it in our Constitution, we have turned to it with great regularity. This growing regulatory governing structure arose out of a failure of trust that reaches back to the 60s, where all authority was challenged. I am one who can remember being warned not to trust anyone over 30.
But it is not only constitutional accretion that reflects the increasing breakdown in trust. When funding began to diminish decades ago, we did not go back to the congregations to learn of their concerns, but sought designated giving to make up for the shortfalls. Designated giving quickly became popular as contributors sought to ensure their donations were spent as intended. Now it so common that the funds received by the General Assembly are limited to the degree that there is little left for discretionary spending.
The PUP Task Force titled its report to the last General Assembly “A Season of Discernment,” and called us all to a time of seeking the will of God together. It modeled a process and laid out suggestions for how to make decisions that would give us confidence that when a vote is taken, it is truly a reflection of the will of God. But even yet many have little trust that a decision of a presbytery or the General Assembly is a legitimate expression of the will of God for the church. Those on the “losing” side of votes frequently believe that the decision was the result of manipulation or pressure or some kind of cleverness, and, of course, just plain wrong
While Constitutional accretion, failing funding, and suspicion of decisions of our governing bodies have been apparent for years, few have identified the common element of trust as significant in itself. The breakdown of trust is so great that it inhibits our mission, damages our effectiveness, and generates endless fights. Because we have not addressed this issue directly, distrust flies unabated in every direction. I believe the breakdown of trust is the most serious problem facing the church today, and until we begin to address it, we will continue in our current travails.
Trust will be tested at the 218th General Assembly. Two years ago, after extensive debate, the 217th General Assembly approved an amended Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108. Some feared that it would constitute “local option” for the ordination and installation of non-celibate gays and lesbians, and they said so. The General Assembly was persuaded to approve the AI after it heard assurances in committee and plenary that it would not change ordination standards.
One provision of the AI was that ordaining governing bodies would be monitored by judicial process:
d. Whether the examination and ordination and installation decision comply with the Constitution of the PC(USA), and whether the ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing bodies.
The rationale for the AI interpreted it:
2. Ordaining and installing bodies are empowered and duty-bound to apply the church’s standards and to determine the fitness for office of those elected to office. This responsibility includes determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether officers-elect adhere to essential and necessary articles of doctrine, discipline, and government.
Recently the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, in the case Bush et al v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh, decided two issues: whether decisions on ordination can be made by blanket policy, or require consideration case by case; and whether a governing body can waive the provisions of fidelity and chastity in G-6.0106b. The decision was unequivocal: an ordaining body must consider each case individually; a governing body cannot waive the fidelity and chastity requirements of G-6.0106b. Not trusting that the PJC decision reflects the will of God, an overture has been submitted to the General Assembly to approve a new authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 that would reverse the Pittsburgh decision.
I have long been on the record that I believe G-6.0106b is wrong. Were I being examined today I would declare a scruple on it because I believe it makes us all hypocrites. Nevertheless, I have and shall comply, and as a stated clerk I have tried my very best to see it is enforced. But even though I oppose G-6.0106b, I believe the attempt to override the Bush v. Pittsburgh decision is a mistake, for it seeks a betrayal of trust of such magnitude that it may have permanent and long-term effects on the church.
The 217th General Assembly agreed that higher governing bodies, through our judicial process, would review decisions made under the Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108. A year and a half later, that process has decided two issues. Now the San Jose General Assembly will need to determine if it will abide by the decision reached through the process established in Birmingham. It has the right to reverse the decision, of course, because the Book of Order provides that a decision of a General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission is an authoritative interpretation, and that the General Assembly has the power to issue an authoritative interpretation on its own — which is what it did with the PUP AI. Under the rules, the most recent AI prevails. If the General Assembly in San Jose approves the proposed AI, it will nullify the Pittsburgh Presbytery decision, abandoning the reasoned decision and application of the Constitution by its own Permanent Judicial Commission, and will substitute for it a decision made on the emotions of the moment and politics of the day.
I fear that should the 218th General Assembly approve the overture and overturn the PJC decision in Bush et al v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh, the trust level in the church may be damaged beyond repair.
*This article was written and accepted for publication prior to the author’s announced participation in the upcoming election of the General Assembly stated clerk.
Ed Koster is the stated clerk of the Presbytery of Detroit in Michigan.
Trackback(0)
 |
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comment form