Viewpoint
June 27, 2006

In Conformity and Compliance with the Constitution
An amended Authoritative Interpretation
By Winfield "Casey" Jones

When in 1986 my wife and I were received as minister members into the Presbytery of New Covenant (transferring from another presbytery), another person who was to be examined for ordination was, as I recall, received under what we call the “extraordinary clause.” (G-14.0313). If memory serves, this very bright candidate had graduated with high marks from a PC(USA) seminary but had not received a degree from college. G-14.0310 requires for ministers who wish to be ordained that they graduate both from college and from a theological institution accredited by the Association of Theological Schools, but a subsequent part of the Book of Order, G-14.0313, permits a presbytery to approve, in extraordinary circumstances, someone who did not possess one or both of the required degrees.

What is interesting about the requirement for a candidate to have both a theological degree and a college degree is that the Book of Order explicitly allows a presbytery to waive this requirement – but only by a 75% vote. The Book of Order also speaks of another standard for officers – the “requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness,” – but it does not contain a similar provision for this requirement to be waived by any number of votes – even 100%.

Clearly the intent of G-6.0106 b is to require the fidelity/chastity standard with no possibility for a vote by a presbytery to create an exception, while the requirement for ministers to have both a college and seminary degree is a requirement that can be waived by a 75% vote of the presbytery.

Some interpret the action of the recent General Assembly as allowing presbyteries to waive shalls, mandates, or requirements. I do not interpret the action of the Assembly, which included a strong amendment to the report, that way. But let’s suppose for a moment that I am wrong and that the interpreters of PUP as amended who say that presbyteries can waive requirements are right. What would this do to the extraordinary clause in G-14.0301? There are two possible answers, but neither of them makes any sense because this reading of PUP as amended makes no sense:

1. Possible answer number one is that PUP as amended permits the presbytery to waive by a majority vote any requirement as non-essential. So it could waive the requirement for both a college and a seminary degree by a simple majority. But this cannot be right because G-14.0313 says it takes 75 % of the votes at presbytery to waive the educational requirements for a candidate. It is not possible that PUP as amended over-rides G-14.0313, because the Assembly by itself under our Constitution does not have the power to amend a Book of Order requirement down from a ¾ vote to a simple majority vote.

2. Possible answer number two is that we just follow G-14.0313 and say that it takes a vote of 75% to waive the education requirement, but the fidelity/chastity requirement can be waived by a 50% vote. But how can this be right? How can the requirement (fidelity/chastity) in G-6.0106b, which is an absolute requirement and contains no mention of the presbyteries being able to waive it at all, be waived by a mere 50% of the votes whereas it takes 75% to waive the educational requirement which unlike G-6.0106b is not an absolute requirement but gives some leeway for exceptions? This interpretation of the Constitution also makes no sense.

This simple example is just the beginning of problems that can arise from a reading of PUP as amended which allows presbyteries to waive shalls, requirements, and mandates of the Book of Order as non-essentials of polity.

We await an advisory opinion from the GA stated clerk which he promises to produce after his well-deserved vacation and after he and staff put their heads together. Unfortunately, it is also likely we shall see judicial cases, and that permanent judicial commissions will get involved in interpreting and applying the new authoritative interpretation. In the meantime, there is good news: PUP as amended does NOT have to be interpreted as allowing sessions or presbyteries to waive requirements, mandates, and "shalls" in the Book of Order.

Here are some reasons why a clerk or a PJC, operating in integrity, will say this:

1. According to G-13.0103r, General Assemblies have the power to issue authoritative interpretations of the Constitution. While the Form of Government nowhere says that these interpretations become a part of the Constitution, it does say they are binding. We could say, “all such interpretations of the Constitution are binding.”

2. However the immediately preceding section of the Book of Order, G-13.0103q, says that the General Assembly has the responsibility and power to “decide controversies brought before it and to give advice and instruction in cases submitted to it, in conformity with the Constitution.” (emphasis added) Since this section appears just before the section on authoritative interpretations and since an authoritative interpretation is a form of advice, we must assume that an AI must be “in conformity with the Constitution”
(If a GA action is not in conformity with the Constitution, it is actually an amendment and must be approved by a majority of the presbyteries as well.) If even advice and instruction must be in conformity with the Constitution, how much more so must an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution be in conformity with it?! This means that the clerk and PJC’s will need to interpret PUP as amended in a way which is in conformity with the Constitution.

3. The amendment in the Ecclesiology committee and the amendment on the floor of the Assembly confirm that PUP as amended must be interpreted in conformity with the Constitution. The PUP report as amended has the following extra language (underlined) about what reviewing bodies should review in a decision to ordain or install an officer: “Whether the examination and ordination and installation decision comply with the Constitution of the PCUSA, 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.” This clearly means that an ordination or installation decision which does not comply with mandates of the Constitution must be over-turned.

4. I understand that there are some who wish to interpret the authoritative interpretation of the Assembly (PUP as amended) still to say that candidates may scruple requirements of the Constitution. But inasmuch as authoritative interpretations must be in conformity with the Constitution (#2 above) and inasmuch as the Assembly amended the report to say that the receiving of officers after examination by governing bodies will be reviewed, now, on “whether the examination and ordination and installation decision comply with the Constitution of the PCUSA,” it seems clear that the clerk should advise, and PJC’s should find, that scruples which are contradictory to a mandate, requirement or "shall" in the Constitution cannot comply with this PUP report as amended which is the authoritative interpretation of the Assembly.

Stated clerks and permanent judicial commissions have been known to make decisions based on post-modern philosophy where words in the Constitution become “squishy” and mean whatever the interpreter wants them to mean. Instead the words in the AI (PUP as amended) must be read in a way which is in conformity with the plain meaning of the Constitution. The language inserted into the AI by the Assembly demands nothing less. Any reading of language in the AI (and there is some) which appears to contradict or change the plain meaning of the Constitution (not based on a tortured reading of the Constitution but its plain language) or which looks like an amendment cannot be the correct reading since we all know that an AI cannot amend the Book of Order but rather interprets it. In all cases the plain meaning of the language of Part II of the Constitution (the Book of Order) must be chosen, and the AI must be interpreted in such a way as to be in conformity, not contradiction, with that language in the Book of Order. Again, any reading of the AI which would see it as changing the Constitution like an amendment does cannot be correct because this is an AI and not an amendment.

The stated clerk of the General Assembly, stated clerks of other governing bodies, presbyteries, permanent judicial commissions, and sessions must be responsible and accountable to the Church for upholding the plain meaning of the Constitution and of this amended AI which states that both examinations and ordination/installation decisions must comply with the Constitution. The stated clerk of the Assembly must particularly be accountable to do this since one of his duties, according to the Standing Rules of the General Assembly is to “preserve and defend” the Constitution.

The German philosopher Goethe once said that societies which are in the ascendancy emphasize the objectivity of truth whereas societies in decline emphasize the subjectivity of truth. I think this applies not just to societies but also to organizations and to the Church. What Goethe’s words mean is that when we can all agree on the plain meaning of words, we can have a healthy robust, growing society – or Church. But when each of us imports his or her own meaning, so that words no longer have plain meanings which unite us, we are a society – or a Church – in decline. When words like “must,” “shall,” “requirement,” “in conformity with the Constitution,” and “comply with the Constitution” are read according to their plain meaning – the meaning that ordinary people would put on them – then we are emphasizing the objectivity of truth, and the Church will flourish. When we emphasize the subjectivity of language – that a single word can be interpreted many ways – then words like “chastity,” “fidelity,” “requirement” and “shall” will no longer have any real meaning, and pretty soon, the words “Jesus Christ” will have no meaning either.

I want to encourage each church member of the PC(USA) to contact their pastor, their session, their presbytery, and above all the stated clerk of the General Assembly and insist that all of our governing bodies apply this authoritative interpretation in a way that is in conformity with the plain meaning of the Constitution and in a way which takes seriously the amendment on the floor of GA demanding compliance with the Constitution. I urge all to call, write, or email them and say that in the interpretation and application of this amended authoritative interpretation, they are in favor of the three C’s: Conformity with and Compliance with our Constitution. The stated clerk, Clifton Kirkpatick, who will soon issue an advisory opinion about what in his judgment this amended AI means, needs to hear from us , and he needs our prayers and encouragement for him to uphold the Constitution. He can be reached by email at ckirkpat@ctr.pcusa.org, and by mail at: Stated Clerk Kirkpatrick, PC(USA), 100 Witherspoon St. Louisville, KY, 40202-1396. It is urgent.

The Rev. Winfield Jones is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Pearland, Texas, and was a candidate for GA stated clerk, 2000. He may be reached at wrjones2002@yahoo.com.