From the Jan-Feb 1998 Issue of the
More Light Update, PLGC's newsletter
NEWLY ORDAINED "GAY" ELDER RETAINS ORDINATION
The highest church court in the Synod of the Covenant (the Synod
Permanent Judicial Commission, SPJC) has ruled that a gay elder
recently ordained in Cincinnati may retain his ordination.
Earlier, the Cincinnati Presbytery court (Presbytery Permanent
Judicial Commission, PPJC) had ruled that the ordination was
invalid and was therefore null and void.
Here are excerpts from the synod court decision:
History
In October of 1995, the Congregational Nominating Committee of
Knox Presbyterian Church presented to the Session a slate of
officers for the Class of 1998. The Clerk of Session provided
the Session with numerous materials related to the ordination of
"self-affirming, practicing, homosexual persons." The Clerk
believed that there might be a "problem" with one of the Session
nominees, should that person be elected. The Session then called
a Special Meeting at which more materials were distributed for
the Session to study and intense discussions took place. During
the discussions a 1992 personal letter from one minister to
another was referenced by the Clerk. In that letter, an unnamed
participant who had been asked to present the homosexual side of
a panel discussion was identified as "in fact" being homosexual.
The Clerk stated that he had been at the 1992 meeting and he
believed that the person identified had made the statement, but
when asked by a Session member to elaborate, the Clerk made no
response. At the same meeting, a member of Session stated that
she had heard the man who had been nominated for Session say he
was a "gay man," but she also refused to elaborate. Having
studied all the materials given to them, including the Book of
Order, the 1978 Policy Statement, and numerous GA cases, at
the November 20, 1995, regular stated Session meeting, the
Session voted to include one additional question to the elected
Session Class of 1998, said question having been suggested by
Rev. Mark Tammen, Office of the General Assembly. [According to
the UPI story on this case, the candidate in question "was asked if
there was anything that might prevent him from fulfilling his
duty. He replied 'no' and was ordained." -- JDA] On December 5,
1995, an orientation meeting for officers-elect was held at which
time a variety of information was given to the electees,
including the *Policy on Ordination of Homosexual Persons*. On
December 18, the candidates were examined in small groups so that
Elders could privately question each candidate. No Elder chose
to ask specific sexually-oriented questions of any of the
candidates. The consensus of the Elders was that a "Don't tell,
don't ask" policy was the appropriate procedure and deviation
from that might subject the church to litigation. Elders present
testified at trial that the Session believed that no "initiative
in declaring his ... sexual orientation" had been taken by the
Elder-elect pursuant to Conclusions, Section II no. 6 of the 1978
Policy Statement [quoted below under findings]. With only 2
dissents, the motion to approve, ordain and install was passed.
On January 7 the entire Class of 1998 was ordained and/or
installed. ...
[JDA's commentary: As I typed this history into the computer, it
made me think of 1. medieval inquisitions, 2. the McCarthy hearings and
blacklists, 3. racist decrees in Nazi Germany and in South Africa
during the apartheid era that a single drop of Jewish or Black
blood made you Jewish or Black and deprived you of citizenship.
Is this the way our church wants to treat fellow Christians????
One of the equitable aspects of Amendment B, if the Presbyteries
fail to vote for Amendment A and permit Amendment B to go into
effect, is that just about *EVERYONE* will be subject to this type
of inquisition -- not just us gay and lesbian folks!]
Findings
[The Synod PJC unanimously sustains that] ...
According to the Book of Order G-14.0203, there is no provision
to set aside an ordination except through a disciplinary
decision. The bases for the PPJC decision were the precedent set
by the General Assembly minutes of 1836 (pages 421 and 444) and
*Robert's Rules of Order (1990). Neither of these has relevance
in this case.
The decision of the General Assembly of 1836 related to the 1801
Plan of Union for which PPJC in its decision claims precedent.
That case has no relevance to declaring an *ordination* null and
void.
In G-9.0302 the Book of Order states an exception to *Robert's
Rules of Order* when the Constitution provides otherwise. Here
the Constitution in G-14.0203 specifically states that the office
of Elder is perpetual and it can not be laid aside except in a
disciplinary proceeding. ...
[The action of the PPJC] is directly contrary to G-14.0203 of the
Book of Order and to established legal precedent as set forth in
*Hope Presbyterian Church vs. Central Presbyterian Church, GA
PJC, No. 206-3 (1994).* ...
The Book of Order provides that the office of Elder is "perpetual
and no one can ... be divested of it except as provided in the
Rules of Discipline." The GAPJC [PJC of the General Assembly]
(1994) upheld the ruling that even when "the ordinations were not
in accordance with constitutional law in the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.), they must stand in accordance with G-14.0203 of the
Book of Order" Hope Presbyterian Church vs. Central Presbyterian
Church, GAPJC, No. 206-3 (1990). We find no authoritative
precedent for declaring this ordination null and void. ...
The Session upheld its obligations in accordance with G-14.0205
and G-10.0102k and the 1978 Policy Statement by making a thorough
study, giving prayerful thought, holding a special meeting, and
consulting with others on proper procedure for their examination
of officers elect. At no point was the Session able to conclude
that a "declaration" of sexual orientation had been made and
therefore the Session conducted no specific examination of the
sexual orientation of practice of any Elder-elect. According to
the 1978 Policy Statement conclusions Section II, No. (6), the
190th General Assembly (1978): "Urges candidates committees,
personnel committees, nominating committees, and judicatories to
conduct their examination of candidates for ordained office with
discretion and sensitivity, recognizing that it would be a
hindrance to God's grace to make a specific inquiry into the
sexual orientation or practice of candidates for ordained office
or ordained officers where the person involved has not taken the
initiative in declaring his or her sexual orientation."
The Session of Knox acted appropriately in its examination and
the PPJC was in error in substituting its judgment in regard to
what questions should have been asked to any Elder-elect.
Session has the right to determine both whether a declaration
has, in fact, been made and to determine what further questions
are appropriate to be asked. The PPJC erred by substituting its
judgment for that of [the Session of Knox Presbyterian Church]
with respect to the extent of any "specific inquiry" or "further
inquiry" that might be necessary and/or appropriate under the
circumstances. [The Session of Knox Presbyterian Church] was
entitled to use its reasonable discretion in determining how it
should proceed with its examination of candidates for ordination.
...
Session acted properly in the absence of conclusive evidence of a
"declaration of sexual orientation" initiated by any candidate
for office. There is no evidence that such a declaration was
made to the Session. It is the opinion of the SPJC that the
intent of the 1978 Policy Statement is that a declaration must
have been made directly to the judicatory. ...
[JDA's commentary: That last sentence is very important!]
The PPJC has no right to substitute its judgment as to whether a
"declaration" had been made, nor was it entitled to substitute
its judgment regarding specific questions that should be asked.
...
The evidence before the Session in 1995 at the time of its
examination failed to establish that the Elder-elect had "self-
affirmed" or "declared" that he was a "homosexual person" or that
he was "currently practicing" a homosexual life-style, or that he
was "unrepentant," all of which are specified in the 1978 Policy
Statement as conditions for ineligibility for ordination. ...
It is so ordered, this 23rd day of October 1997.