I’ve had a chance this morning to read the decision by the PCUSA Permanent Judicial Commission pertaining to the Pittsburgh ordination standards resolution. I’m no lawyer (for that, see GA Junkie), but makes for interesting reading.

First a bit of pertinent background. Here is the portion of the Pittsburgh resolution that was before the PJC:

In its discernment of the essentials of Reformed polity and for the sake of the peace, unity, and purity of the church, Pittsburgh Presbytery [Resolution, part 1]:

Adopts the principle that compliance with the standards for ordination approved by the Presbyterian Church (USA) in the Book of Order is an essential of Reformed polity. Therefore, any departure from the standards of ordination expressed in the Book of Order will bar a candidate from ordination and/or installation by this governing body. Provisions of the Book of Order are signified as being standards by use of the term “shall,” “is/are to be,” “requirement” or equivalent expression [Resolution, part 2];

This was adopted in response to the Authoritative Interpretation document of 2006, which stated:

a. The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government of the Book of Order set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation.
b. These standards are determined by the whole church, after the careful study of Scripture and theology, solely by the constitutional process of approval by the General Assembly with the approval of the presbyteries. These standards may be interpreted by the General Assembly and its Permanent Judicial Commission.
c. Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards to those elected to office. These determinations include:

(1) Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office,

(2) Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book
of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation.

So what Pittsburgh (and several dozen other presbyteries have done) is issue a formal determination that departure from G-6.0108 constitutes a “failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity.” But according to the PJC decision, that can only take place within the context of an actual ordination examination. Here’s the key paragraph in the decision:

Ordaining bodies have the right and responsibility to determine whether or not any “scruples” declared by candidates for ordination and/or installation constitute serious departures from our system of doctrine, government, or discipline; to what extent the rights and views of others might be infringed upon by those departures; and whether those departures obstruct the constitutional governance of the church. At the same time, attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary. G-6.0108a sets forth standards that apply to the whole church. These standards are binding on and must be followed by all governing bodies, church officers and candidates for church office. Adopting statements about mandatory provisions of the Book of Order for ordination and installation of officers falsely implies that other governing bodies might not be similarly bound; that is, that they might choose to restate or interpret the provisions differently, fail to adopt such statements, or possess some flexibility with respect to such provisions. Restatements of the Book of Order, in whatever form they are adopted, are themselves an obstruction to the same standard of constitutional governance no less than attempts to depart from mandatory provisions. [Emphasis added.]

So presbyteries can only make the determination that the AI mandates on a case-by-case basis. That’s fair enough, and it suggests that there is a universal standard that all presbyteries have to operate by in determining whether a particular scruple is a departure from essentials or not. But the really interesting thing here is the portion in bold. It suggests that the recent moves by San Francisco and Twin Cities presbyteries to permit sexually active homosexuals to be ordained or readmitted to ordination, in open violation of those standards, based on the candidates’ scruples is also invalid. Though no resolutions were passed, those presbyteries’ actions have the effect of tossing out G.0108 and saying that because the candidates object, and the presbyteries agree with their objection, the latter are under no obligation to enforce the standards, and the former are under no obligation to obey them. If I’m reading this decision correctly, it sounds as though challenges to those presbyterie’ actions shoudl be successful, provided they argue that the ordaining bodies had no constitutional right to set aside the standard, only to uphold the scruples. In other words, they were free to allow dissent from the BOO provisions, but no authority to waive them as to conduct.

If I’m right about this (a 50-50 proposition, admittedly), then this decision shouldn’t be taken as a blow to evangelical forces in the PCUSA. They will still be free to block ordination of practicing gays, while liberals will not be allowed to ordain them. If I’m wrong, then it’s just one more nail in the coffin. I expect it will take a decision by the PJC at least in the San Francisco case (now being appealed) to find out.

UPDATE: Upon reading Leslie Scanlon’s report at the Presbyterian Outlook, I took another look at the Pittsburgh decision, and I think things may be even more clear-cut than I initially thought:

Section G-6.0106b contains a provision where conformity is required by church officers “to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or in chastity in singleness.”  The church has decided to single out this particular manner of life standard and require churchwide conformity to it for all ordained church officers.  Therefore, the specific “fidelity and chastity” standard in G-6.0106b stands in contrast to the provisions of G-6.0106a, including those concerning faith, discipleship, belief and manner of life in the church and the world, and also the remainder of G-6.0106b.  The candidate and examining body must follow G-6.0108 in reaching a determination as to whether the candidate for office has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity, but that determination does not rest on distinguishing “belief” and “behavior,” and does not permit departure from the “fidelity and chastity” requirement found in G-6.0106b. Accordingly that portion of SPJC decision that stated: “no presbytery may grant an exception to any mandatory church wide behavioral ordination standard,” was correct. We agree with the SPJC that, “Under our polity, violations of behavioral standards are to be addressed through repentance and reconciliation, not by exception or exemption. The freedom of conscience granted in G-6.0108 allows candidates to express disagreement with the wording or meaning of provisions of the constitution, but does not permit disobedience to those behavioral standards.” The fidelity and chastity provision may only be changed by a constitutional amendment. Until that occurs, individual candidates, officers, examining and governing bodies must adhere to it.

Translation: I was correct in thinking that the court was mandating adherence in behavior while granting that disagreement may be expressed. They were even clearer than I initially thought (this part was in a section I passed over pretty quickly because it upheld the Synod PJC’s decision; my bad.) My thanks to Ms. Scanlon for a careful and informative reading of the decision.

I’d say that pretty well shuts the door on Lisa Larges and Paul Capetz. The question is, will the presbyteries in question recognize that (technically, they don’t have to since they weren’t party to the Pittsburgh decision)? My guess is that they’ll ignore it until after General Assembly, and then see what the lay of the land looks like.