Presbyterians may disagree with their church’s ban on ordaining noncelibate gays and lesbians, but they must follow the rules, according to the Louisville-based denomination’s highest court.
The decisive ruling means that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will allow no exceptions to the ban, ending the expectations of some that a controversial policy adopted in 2006 would allow regional governing bodies flexibility in enforcing the tenet on homosexuality.
The constitution gives “freedom of conscience” to disagree with church law, which restricts ordination to singles living in “chastity” or those living in “fidelity” in a heterosexual marriage, the court ruled.
But the constitution “does not permit disobedience to those behavioral standards,” according to the court, known as the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission.
“The fidelity and chastity provision may only be changed by a constitutional amendment,” it said. Unless that happens, everyone “must adhere to it.”
Conservative groups applauded the decision.
“The (Presbyterian Church U.S.A.) is still one body that follows one set of clear standards for its officers,” said the Louisville-based group Presbyterians for Renewal. “”¦ Nothing has changed.”
Would that TEC were so specific!
The Presbyterians got it right: they established a rule of fidelity and chastity for all ministers. It’s much better than the 1979 ECUSA rule that active homosexuals should be excluded from ordination, with no restriction once one got past that bar. Not only does the Presbyterian rule apply to heterosexuals as well as to homosexuals, but it restricts behavior of ministers, rather than attempting to regulate the gatekeepers.
Oh my. A number of the PCUSA’s largest churches have left or are in the process of leaving, some mired in court battles for property, over the gay-friendly policy change by the last general assembly that just got ruled unconstitutional.
Sad, sad. The church court should have acted much sooner. Much unrest and division could have been avoided.
This is good, good news for the remaining conservatives in PCUSA, and encouragement for the faithful in the United Methodist Church to continue to hold the line.
But make no mistake, the gay activists and their allies will be back with more battering rams. It won’t be over until, well, they decide to take their rainbow stoles and other paraphernalia and join the United Church of Christ.
w.w.
[blockquote] Oh my. A number of the PCUSA’s largest churches have left or are in the process of leaving, some mired in court battles for property, over the gay-friendly policy change by the last general assembly that just got ruled unconstitutional. [/blockquote]
I think w.w. that the two parts of this paragraph are linked. PCUSA seems to have suddenly realised the cost of their decision, and their knees have weakened. They seem to simultaneously be moving to stop churches going to the EPC — which they can currently do by merely being dismissed to it (though many are being required to make a “freewill offering” to get that dismissal from their Presbyteries). It would seem that it is the large and viable that are leaving — and the small and dependent who are now looking down the barrel of extinction.
If the PCUSA is turning away from the brink as a denomination, so much the better. But there is a real question still out there as to enforcement of this ruling – the “local option”-esque provisions embraced at the last General Assembly seem to allow for facts on the ground that are markedly different from the denomination’s official position, so there may still be much for these departing congregations to object to.
Wow. A denomination that sets rules and then expects people to abide by them? Dang. What a novel idea.
Jeff,
Can you elaborate? The two presbyteries in question had declared they would not consider for ordination any candidates whose behavior violates the chastity/fidelity standards in the PCUSA constitution. The issue was appealed to the church courts by two individuals who pointed out that the 2006 General Assembly had allowed people for conscience reasons to be exempt from the standards. In both cases, the presbytery court and the synod court upheld the position of the presbyteries: the standards must be enforced.
The PCUSA’s highest court without dissent not only concurred with the lower courts, but went on to declare that what the General Assembly had done to allow the exceptions was itself unconstitutional! It said that ONLY a constitutional amendment could allow the standards for behavior to be changed.
Of course, repeated attempts to change the constitution on that issue have failed. Proof again that the liberal social action engineers who hold the levers of denominational power are out of touch with the grassroots.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the cases of two individuals who won the conscience exclusion from their respective presbyteries make their way through the system. It would seem the local presbytery courts would have to bow to the word from on high and just inform the presbyteries what they did was illegal — and any ordinations were invalid?
w.w.
WW, perhaps *actual* compliance for Presbyterians will come, perhaps not. TEC violated many of its own rules, canons, and vows, did it not? Not to mention the provision on homosexuality passed at the last Lambeth party.
While we certainly wish them fervant luck in retaking their Church, it might be prudent to “wait and see” how it turns out. A couple of times there, I had hopes for TEC itself, but…
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/10171/#186428]w.w.[/url],
I was essentially saying what dpierce wrote in #8: that the proof is in the pudding. You’re right in identifying the current cases of individuals as the test cases for this ruling.
This may be the big difference between TEC and the PCUSA…that the latter is willing, at least for now, to discipline itself according to its own pronouncements.