The following statement was approved by the Board of Presbyterians For Renewal during its Board Meeting in Chattanooga on September 22-24, 2005.

THE TASK FORCE REPORT: “AI, AI, OH!”

There is much about which we can rejoice in the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity, and little to regret. But that which we regret is indeed troublesome. It is the Authoritative Interpretation (AI). “AI, AI, Oh!”

Once the dust settles, the only part of the Task Force report that will matter is the proposed Authoritative Interpretation (recommendation 5). The orthodox theology, the faithful dialogue, and the dedication to the church that the Task Force modeled will quickly fade in people’s minds, as have many other reports made to General Assemblies past. An Authoritative Interpretation has the force of law. In court, only the Authoritative Interpretation, not the rest of the report, would have force.

The Theological Reflection that begins and anchors the report is a positive statement. It is faithful to the Scriptures and the long-established convictions of the PC(USA). It is a vital part of the report and we support it. Among the points we appreciate are

•    the clear affirmation of God’s eternal triune identity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit;

•    the description of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the true Word of God and our rule of faith and life;

•    a strong Christology that understands Jesus Christ as being fully human and fully divine;

•    the confession that our hope resides in the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; and

•    a recognition that Christ alone is Lord and Savior and that the entire world stands in need of his grace.

Theological disconnect

The problem is that the proposed Authoritative Interpretation does not seem to flow smoothly and clearly from the Theological Reflection. At issue is the nature of the church as a covenant community. While we are reformed and always reforming, we seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit together, not separately. With regard to ordination standards, the majority has discerned that even though we are all sinful, there are certain behaviors that preclude some from being called to particular offices. This AI is an attempt to maintain, and yet get around, these standards.

The heart of the matter is that the proposed Authoritative Interpretation grants sessions and presbyteries the power to overlook certain behaviors that currently prevent some people from being ordained or installed by declaring, case by case, that those behaviors are not a departure from an essential of Reformed faith and polity. Currently, lower governing bodies are bound to honor the discernment of the majority.

Therefore, we must object to this proposed Authoritative Interpretation and recommend that it not be adopted.

Seven reasons not to adopt recommendation 5

First, this Authoritative Interpretation will permit behavior by ordained Presbyterian officers that is prohibited by Scripture and our constitution. (See G-6.0106b and the Authoritative Interpretation of 1993, which affirms such behavior to be sin.)

Second, it is a flawed attempt at compromise to say, on one hand, that we have standards that have not changed and, on the other hand, that those standards may be considered not essential. This proposal wants to keep the language of G-6.0106b, for example, and its affirmation of “fidelity within the covenant of marriage … or chastity in singleness,” and to continue to call this a standard of the church, yet allow it to be treated as optional, a desirable but nonessential guideline.

Third, the Task Force report itself affirms, “Ultimately, the church cannot simply agree to disagree on important matters of faith and practice” (lines 775–776), yet that is what this Authoritative Interpretation would have us do.

Fourth, this Authoritative Interpretation dismisses the past three decades of discernment by the entire PC(USA). We read much about discernment in the Task Force report, and we affirm discernment! But for 30 years the entire church has been considering the issue of ordination standards. The General Assembly has been calling on the entire church to pray and conduct dialogues, listening sessions, conversations, and studies. The General Assembly itself has appointed special committees, called for a three-year period of study, and held its own dialogues, as have sessions and presbyteries. What about the discernment of the entire church through those years?

Three times, beginning in 1996, every presbytery in the country has voted on the language of G-6.0106b. This is the single most debated and voted upon paragraph in the Book of Order. By increasing percentages through the vote of the presbyteries, the entire church has affirmed that it wants to keep this language. But not only has the church voted to keep this language, the church has understood what it was voting on: a national standard to be adhered to by all who seek ordination. Through all of the praying and studying and dialoguing and deliberating by the entire church, the church has found its “center of gravity” on the issue of the ordination of practicing gay and lesbian persons. And yet this Authoritative Interpretation, by a single majority vote of one General Assembly, would render that deliberate resolution by the entire church subject to overrule by any session or presbytery.

We have no doubt that the Task Force considered the dialogue of these many past years and its results. Yet their recommendation effectively sets those results aside.

Fifth, recommendation 5 is out of step with the rest of the Task Force report. In its Final Word the report states, “a season of discernment is due in the church” (line 1503), and it urges that this happen “before engaging in processes of constitutional change” (lines 1513–1514). Yet make no mistake: recommendation 5 will change the constitution! It will, as Michael Walker has pointed out, “collapse” all other standards in the Book of Order under G-6.0108 and give every session and presbytery the authority to determine that any departure is nonessential. (Michael’s article, “Lordship of Jesus, Local License,” is at www.pfrenewal.org.)

This Authoritative Interpretation, therefore, takes an unwarranted leap at a new constitutional solution by presuming upon the outcome of the very process of “intensive discernment” in which the report is calling the church to engage.

Sixth, adoption of this Authoritative Interpretation will have a chilling effect on our relationships with global partners, nearly all of whom consider the official allowance of homosexual practice in the church to be something they cannot permit themselves or support in others.

Seventh, this Authoritative Interpretation will be divisive and unworkable. Every session and presbytery will be left to debate which standards are essential. Furthermore, what will happen when persons move? Ordaining bodies that hold “fidelity and chastity” to be essential standards must either reject some who have been allowed to be ordained elsewhere by this Authoritative Interpretation, or permit them onto their sessions and into their presbyteries.

As noted earlier, the Task Force report itself says, “Ultimately, the church cannot simply agree to disagree on important matters of faith and practice.” We agree. And so, trusting the leading of the Holy Spirit in accordance with the Word of God over these past decades of our life together in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), we conclude that this Authoritative Interpretation should not be adopted. However well-intentioned this proposal is, it will not further the peace, unity, and purity of the church