The document begins, continues, and ends with exhortations to mutual "discernment" as Presbyterians conduct their business and respond to each other’s actions.

This reflects what happened in the deliberations of the twenty-member TTF. They learned to love and respect each other despite their differences; yet no one’s mind was changed concerning core convictions, especially the ordination of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender members of our church.

They worked out a statement that all of them could agree to, without any dissenting votes or minority report. The conservatives on the Task Force, who include Jack Haberer, the new editor of the Presbyterian Outlook, can thus be characterized as "inclusive conservatives," in contrast to the "exclusive conservatives" whose united voice is the Presbyterian Coalition.

In Part V, the conclusion of the report, the TTF’s Recommendation 2 urges governing bodies, congregations, and other groups of Presbyterians to follow the example of the TTF and engage in a process of "intensive discernment." This has already been done in a few presbyteries, responding early to the TTF’s report.

Recommendation 4 urges all who plan and moderate meetings of governing bodies to "explore the use of alternative forms of discernment and decision-making as a complement to parliamentary procedure, especially in dealing with potentially divisive issues" (lines 1150-54).

All this is to the good. But most people in the church were waiting for the "bottom line" — how the TTF dealt with the issues for which it was created.

The big surprise is that the TTF focuses not on the controversial G-6.0106b, which was added to the Book of Order in 1996-97, but on G-6.0108, which has been there since reunion in 1983. This says that

Sometimes there is "hold the line" language, to the effect that standards are established by the whole church; that local governing bodies "cannot set their own standards or set aside the church’s standards"; and thus that "local option" is not an accurate way of characterizing their recommendation.

At the same time there is flexibility, since any examination involves determining, "on a case-by-case basis," whether the person adheres to the "essential and necessary articles" and, if there is any "departure" from them, whether it is "serious." The report notes that the Adopting Act of 1729 gave ministers the opportunity to dissent from articles of the Westminster Confession and made ordaining bodies responsible for determining whether this was an essential tenet. Neither the Adopting Act nor any subsequent action of the church has ventured to say what the essential tenets are.

In the Church of Scotland after 1700 there was a strong impulse toward "strict subscription" to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Shorter and Longer Catechisms. This was controversial from the start. It was intensified by the desire of some Scottish presbyteries to impose stricter standards, in effect imposing additional confessions of faith.

In colonial America, the first presbytery was organized in 1706 — exactly 300 years ago — and the first synod in 1717. Their makeup was already diverse, with ministers from Scotland, Ireland, and New England. In 1729 the synod approved an Adopting Act that affirmed the Westminster standards "in all the essential and necessary articles," but permitted those seeking ordination to state their "scruples" concerning these standards and left it to the presbytery to judge whether these were within legitimate bounds, not affecting the essentials.

American Presbyterians split a number of times, then came back together. There were agreements of reunion between the Old Side and New Side (1758), Old School and New School (1869-70), the PCUSA with the Cumberland Presbyterians (1903-6), the PCUSA with the United Presbyterians (1958), and the UPCUSA with the PCUS (1983). These would not have happened without the continuing spirit of the Adopting Act. The language of G-6.0108 and the TTF’s Recommendation 5, therefore, is not something new; it is the spirit of American Presbyterianism from the very beginning.

During the 1920s the fundamentalist-modernist controversy broke out in the Presbyterian church. After several years of tension, the General Assemblies of 1926 and 1927 approved the recommendations of the Swearingen Commission, which said that any GA statement about "essentials," such as the five fundamentals, cannot have the same authority as the Constitution. No standards can be imposed beyond the Confessions and the Book of Order, and the ordaining body has the responsibility of assessing an ordinand’s statement as a whole.

Members of the TTF have emphasized the word "standards," noting, on the one hand, that standards are not "essentials," and, on the other, that standards are not a matter of "local option." It is important to remember this guideline as we think about the PUP report.

In sum, the TTF acknowledges, and urges the Assembly to acknowledge formally, that G-6.0108 has already established the legitimacy of "departures" ("scruples" in the language of the Adopting Act) from adherence to the letter of the Constitution, as long as they are not violations of the "essential and necessary" features of Reformed faith, practice, and polity.

Is predestination an "essential" of the Reformed faith? >>

More resources on the controversy during the 1920s >>

The TTF report speaks of both faith and practice, as G-6.0108 does, and as the Adopting Act already did in speaking of "doctrine, discipline, and government." It notes the irony that over time (especially in recent years, we might add, with heated disputes over same-sex relations) an imbalance has developed, with flexibility over doctrine but requirements for strict compliance in conduct — in other words, the Book of Order has become a more powerful, or at least a blunter, instrument than the Book of Confessions.

The TTF was prescient when it noted this growing imbalance between flexibility in doctrine and rigidity over polity. In response to the TTF report, conservatives have sought several means of reducing flexibility in matters of discipline and government. These moves seem to grow out of fear that some governing bodies might ordain gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons.

Three different ways of achieving greater rigidity in polity are being tried.

1. Pittsburgh Presbytery is sending an overture to amend the Form of Government by adding a new sentence to G-6.0108b, stating that any practice that is required or mandatory, labeled with the word "shall," is to be considered "an essential of Reformed faith and polity for officers of the church." The purpose, of course, is to counter the effect of the TTF’s Recommendation 5 if it is adopted.

2. Philadelphia Presbytery has approved an overture whose implementation would be less cumbersome. It proposed to amend Recommendation 5 before final action by the Assembly, adding language stating that

(a) any violation of a "direct provision" of the Book of Order is a bar to ordination or installation,

(b) even if no direct provision applies, any "failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and practice" is a similar bar; and

(c) no ordaining body may fail to maintain "any standard stipulated in the Book of Order."

3. An overture from the Presbytery of New Covenant (Texas) asks the General Assembly to adopt an alternative authoritative interpretation, stating that there is a difference between the essentials of Reformed faith and the essentials of Reformed polity. The former, it says, have not been formally declared; the latter have been so declared, wherever the Book of Order says "shall."

The spirit of these overtures is an amazing one for a church in the Reformation tradition even to think of adopting. The Reformers were deeply concerned about churchly ordinances and requirements, obedience to which had been made mandatory by the Catholic Church, even being considered necessary for salvation. Their judgment was that this led to superstition and tyranny rather than the edification of the church. They made it clear that they respected the interpretations and procedures that the church had set forth in the past; but they were also ready to dissent when these added to Scripture or contradicted its central message, which they characterized as "faith and love" (C-5.010-011).

This insistence on the "shalls" of Presbyterian polity is, at its worst, a doctrine of salvation by works rather than by faith. And if it is not salvation by works, then it is even worse, inviting man-made polity to get in the way of the gospel of salvation by faith. All churches have differentiated between matters of faith, which are (ideally) unchangeable, and those of order, which are time-bound, determined largely on the basis of appropriateness and even convenience.

The Reformers were especially vocal when it came to monastic vows and the requirement of priestly celibacy. In harmony with several passages in the New Testament, they insisted that celibacy is a gift which, being a gift, can be taken away (C-5.245, 7.248). Therefore they warned against "entangling vows of single life" (C-7.249) and "monastical vows of perpetual single life" (C-6.126).

As Archbishop Tutu has pointed out, today we require celibacy only of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons. This is certainly contrary to the spirit of the Reformation, which opposed monastic vows and requirements of celibacy as both impracticable, leading only to hypocrisy, and as an offensive binding of the conscience.

The observations in the last few paragraphs apply to these conservative proposals when they are taken at face value, in their intent.

But in practice their bark is worse than their bite, because the Book of Order must always be interpreted and applied within the framework of the entire Constitution. Through the years the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly has specified the meaning of G-6.0106b ("6b" for short) in a number of ways, making clear that it is not in fact an absolute and unconditional prohibition, applicable under all conceivable circumstances.

For example, you cannot refuse to ordain someone merely because of sexual orientation; the refusal must be based on practice. Furthermore, you cannot ask prying questions; there must be reasonable cause for inquiry, some "direct and specific knowledge" based on "factual allegations." Even if there is some kind of "self-acknowledgment" it must be "plain, palpable, and obvious." And since 6b talks about all the practices that are called sins in the Book of Confessions, an examining body cannot single out sexual orientation and ignore other possible sins. Although this was the intent of many in the church when they proposed and approved 6b, it is unworthy, giving credence to stereotyping and engaging in obvious discrimination.

Recently there was much furor over the ruling by the PJC of Redwoods Presbytery that the Rev. Jane Spahr had the right to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. The PJC pointed out that G-6.0106b applies only to ordination and does not affect the Directory for Worship; indeed, an AI issued by the 1991 General Assembly did not use mandatory language in cautioning against such ceremonies.

In ways like these, Amendment B has already been limited in its scope. We are learning that it is one thing to say, "Let’s pass a law forbidding their ordination"; it’s another thing to interpret that law in a way that is compatible with the entire Constitution of our church.

But now let’s notice what the TTF report does not do.

To many the most bitter medicine is Recommendation 6: that, if the General Assembly approves the previous recommendation, it adopt no additional AIs, not remove any existing ones, and send no constitutional amendments to the presbyteries that would change the church’s policy on these matters. This recommendation is accompanied by an exhortation that we remember our obligation "to conciliate, mediate, and adjust differences without strife, . . . prayerfully and deliberately" (D-1.0103, cited in lines 1469-72).

Approval of Recommendation 6 would perpetuate the church’s prejudicial teachings about homosexuality, whose intent has been to exclude GLBT persons from ordination. And in exhorting the church to continue engaging in dialogue and discernment, the TTF has totally forgotten to mention those persons who are most affected by the ecclesiastical warfare of recent years, our gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender members, many of whom have been called to church office but have encountered various obstacles, including "review" by higher governing bodies and their Permanent Judicial Commissions.

Perhaps most damning, the TTF did not give any explicit consideration to issues of power, one of the four themes it was directed to consider. Aggressive exercise of power — through the channeling or withholding of money, through the power of the press and the internet, and through disciplinary proceedings — has been noticeable for many years in the PC(USA).

The Covenant Network, More Light Presbyterians, and the Witherspoon Society have all said that the TTF report, while it has many positive features, falls short of their goal of removing Amendment B or 6b, and that therefore they do not endorse the report’s recommendations, especially Recommendation 6.

In characterizing the report, a number of people have suggested that it gives us a glass half full — but also half empty. The question they have posed, therefore, is whether the glass should be poured out onto the floor — rejected entirely — or whether we should improve it, fill it up.

In the agenda of the Assembly, the TTF report will probably come to the floor early, with a recommended response from the Assembly committee that deals with the report. We can foresee several basic kinds of responses:

1. Oppose it. Many conservative organizations are positioning themselves against the report, especially its Recommendation 5, which offers an authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 concerning the legitimacy of disagreements with the constitution as long as these are over "non-essentials."

At the meeting of the Presbyterian Coalition in Orlando last December, one possibility mentioned by several speakers was that approval of the Task Force report could lead to a campaign to get congregations to sign a formal threat to withdraw from the church (Presbyterian Outlook, Dec. 5/12, 2005). The hope is to drive a hard bargain with the General Assembly, letting them leave with their property and continue to draw pensions. 

Stockton Presbytery is sending an overture to change the constitution (G-8.0100-07) to state that a congregation’s property "is the sole property of the church" except for the amount of financial assistance provided by the wider church; a congregation could sever its relationship by a vote of 60 percent of the active members.

In the face of ultimatums like these, some commissioners to the Assembly may feel reluctant to risk driving the conservatives out of the church.

But most commissioners are likely to resent this kind of brinkmanship, an all-or-nothing insistence on one’s own point of view. It stands in sharp contrast with the attitude of the inclusive conservatives on the TTF, who were part of the consensus approving the report as a whole.

And many commissioners will want to add another point: The church cannot stifle its public witness in behalf of justice and God’s all-embracing love for the sake of a superficial peace — peace among various factions within the church, and peace with a noisy segment of public opinion.

2. Block it or limit its effect. Another conservative strategy has recently emerged. We have already mentioned the overture from Pittsburgh Presbytery to amend the Book of Order, the overture from Philadelphia Presbytery to amend the TTF’s Recommendation 5, and the overture from New Covenant Presbytery to issue a different kind of AI. All are intended to prevent any action on Recommendation 5, or, if the Assembly should be disposed to approve it, to limit its effect.

Either way, approval of these overtures would nullify three centuries of American Presbyterianism, which has repeatedly given flexibility of judgment to governing bodies in deciding what is an essential; this principle is now stated explicitly in G-6.0108.

3. Label it a "constitutional crisis." San Diego Presbytery on March 21 adopted an internal resolution (not an overture) that not only reaffirmed its list of "Essential Tenets and Reformed Distinctives" (adopted in 2003) but engaged in brinkmanship. If the TTF’s Recommendation 5 is adopted, the presbytery’s moderator will appoint a task force that is to make its report at the September meeting of presbytery. It will consider

• whether the change creates a constitutional crisis,

• whether it creates a state of "biblical and confessional defection,"

• whether the covenant binding congregations and presbyteries together has been breached,

• whether the change minimizes or eliminates the presbytery’s obligation to abide by the polity and discipline of higher governing bodies,

• whether the change compromises the PC(USA)’s ability to exercise governance over its presbyteries,

• what will be the future relationship between the presbytery and the PC(USA), and

• what future steps the presbytery will take to address its concerns with the PC(USA).

4. Exploit it. Now we come to an even farther-reaching strategy. It has been clear that, if the TTF’s Recommendation 5 were to be approved by the Assembly, presbyteries would have more leeway in approving candidates for ordination. Conservative presbyteries might become more conservative, progressive ones more progressive. (That is not a certainty, however. Even conservative presbyteries might ordain "out" candidates whom they know and respect as individuals. Most presbyteries already ordain people with whom they disagree on various points, which are sometimes major points.)

Looking ahead to this possibility and even trying to hasten it, the conservative Beaver-Butler Presbytery in western Pennsylvania has approved an overture to allow congregations, by a two-thirds vote, to change their presbytery and synod affiliations. The effect would be to make all presbyteries non-geographical — something that is at present an exception to the rule, permitted only for ethnic reasons in the Dakota Presbytery and three Korean presbyteries. Presbyteries at both ends of the doctrinal spectrum would become more homogeneous, depriving us of the task of living together with our differences.

5. Support it. Many moderates, including most of the recent Moderators of the General Assembly, see the TTF’s Recommendation 5 as a step forward, compatible with the Adopting Act of 1729, the longtime practice of the church, and the present G-6.0108. In addition, two presbyteries have sent overtures to the General Assembly urging support of the TTF report.

6. Vacillate. Some progressives, disappointed that the TTF report does not recommend removal of Amendment B and even counsels taking no action on this issue, may feel inclined to vote against the report.

For conservatives, the TTF report goes too far; for progressives, it falls short, specifically in its Recommendation 6. These are quite different reasons for opposing the report. Progressives are more likely to feel that the report is broken and needs to be fixed.

7. Fix it. My own prediction — and my own preference — is that the Assembly will support the TTF’s Recommendation 5 and oppose Recommendation 6, which would preclude taking any action on removing B and the negative AIs.

What does the Advisory Committee on the Constitution say? >>

The General Assembly is not the TTF. The dynamics at work in the two bodies are quite different.

The TTF felt that it was important to seek unanimity. In order to achieve this, they approved the report and its recommendations as a carefully crafted whole, as "one package." Unanimity would have been lost if any feature — especially any of the recommendations — had been removed.

That was appropriate procedure for a small group that met in intimate encounter over a period of four years. But the same procedure is not feasible for the church as a whole, or even for the commissioners to the 2006 General Assembly, despite the desirability of reaching consensus. The Assembly is a large body that must work through discussion, debate, and majority vote, even though opportunities are made in the committees for more informal discussions and consensus building.

The TTF, because of its own experiences, felt it essential to approve all the recommendations together, as a single package. But the Assembly is not in any sense obliged to follow the TTF’s example. The TTF is in no sense an autonomous body. Neither is it a commission acting in our stead. It is the creature of the 2001 General Assembly, which directed it to report each year to the to the General Assembly — and, it added, to the presbyteries.

When the Assembly considers the recommendations in the TTF report, it will most likely vote on them separately, one by one. It will be quite proper for them to approve Recommendation 5 and disapprove or take no action on Recommendation 6.

That course of action becomes even more likely when we recall that, during the years when the TTF was doing its work, the presbyteries have been discussing the "ordination question" — something that the TTF decided not do in its report. Twenty-two presbyteries have sent overtures to the 2006 General Assembly for revocation of all previous AIs and removal of G-6.0106b.

The General Assembly has every right, then, after

If the Assembly also sends an amendment to the presbyteries repealing or altering G-6.0106b, it will have to be voted on within one year after the adjournment of the Assembly. (Some of us might like more time for living with the GA’s response to the TTF report, but the Book of Order does not allow for that.) There would be the usual debate and political maneuvering. But adoption of Recommendation 5 could also remind the church about a principle that is as old as its organized life in North America — and remind it that this principle has not led to disaster in the past but in fact has given us the diverse church we already have.

Ever since the landmark 1978 decision cautioning against ordaining gays and lesbians, our church has also defended their civil rights and welcomed them as members.

In keeping with that spirit, an overture from Cincinnati Presbytery calls on the General Assembly to amend the 1978 policy statement by deleting seven statements which set homosexuality in a negative light.

Those who were at the 2004 General Assembly will recall a dispute, continuing long after the close of the Assembly, over a number of negative quotations read out by commissioner Scott Schaeffer during a debate over revoking the hostile AIs. Some of these were from the background paper and thus were not part of the 1978 Assembly’s action. But there are negative and contemptuous evaluations of homosexuality in the Assembly’s policy statement, too. Schaeffer’s purpose was to point out the attitudes about homosexuality that were prevalent in 1978, when the statement was adopted.

If you go to the www.pcusa.org web site, click on Search, and type in "homosexuality," the first thing that pops up is this 1978 statement.

Much has happened since 1978. The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have made important statements about homosexuality and about attempts at "conversion therapy" which assume that it is a reversible "disorder." There have also been many discussions of biblical and doctrinal perspectives on homosexuality. It is time for the church’s most formal policy statement on sexual orientation to be brought up to date and be made less blatantly offensive.

Princeton professor William Stacy Johnson, a member of the Theological Task Force, has summarized six perspectives on homosexuality, and these may help commissioners to the General Assembly as they reflect on the Cincinnati overture.