About Us • Who We Are • Our Denomination • Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly Action

First Presbyterian Church, Boulder, CO
AMENDMENT 10A: Changes to Ordination Standards for Church Officers
INFORMATION AND PRAYER REQUESTS
May 11, 2011


Most Important Points:

  • as some may be aware, our denomination has recently approved an amendment to change ordination standards for church officers. In particular sexual standards have come under review.
  • this debate over sexual standards for church officers has been going on in the Presbyterian Church for decades now
  • for years, our Session has expressed its support for traditional biblical teaching on sexual morality
  • recently Session urged our presbytery commissioners to vote “no” on the amendment
  • however, at its most recent meeting, our local presbytery approved the amendment
  • as of May 10, 2011 a majority of our denomination’s presbyteries approved the amendment
  • Session is monitoring developments closely and is in discussion with like-minded churches across the country about possible options and implications moving forward
  • as we have more information, we will make it available to the congregation
  • for now, a fact sheet is available at the Connection Center and on the remainder of this page.
  • we would ask for your prayers-- for our Session and staff leadership, for our denomination, and for our witness and ministry in the country and world.

Background

As some of you may be aware, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has wrestled for several decades with ordination standards for church officers.  Along with other mainline denominations, we have given special attention to guidelines governing human sexuality. This week, a majority of the presbyteries of our denomination approved an amendment (10A) to change the language currently in our Book of Order about these ordination requirements.

This amendment removes specific references to sexual behavior currently in our Book of Order (the “fidelity and chastity” clause of G-60106b) and substitutes language instead urging a more general “joyful submission to the lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life.”  The specifics of this statement may then be interpreted according to Scripture and confessional standards by governing bodies such as presbyteries and church sessions (see the exact text below).

On Saturday, May 7, 2011 our Plains and Peaks Presbytery voted 73 to 51 to approve this change in language. On the evening of May 10, 2011 Amendment 10A passed.For the moment, no one yet knows exactly what impact this will have on our denomination. Our FPC Denominational Connections Committee of Session and our pastoral staff are carefully monitoring developments. We are in discussion with other like-minded churches in our denomination and will be carefully reviewing options moving forward. We will be sure to advise the congregation as we learn more.

Historically, First Pres leadership has been clear about what we believe the Bible and our Book of Confessions teach concerning sexual standards for leaders in the church. Session has recently expressed its stance urging our delegates to vote against this amendment. As we gather more information about future options, we ask for your prayers for our leadership, for our denomination, and for our witness and mission in the world.

Specific suggestions for prayer:

  • give thanks for Christ’s Lordship over our world, his church, and our denomination
  • give thanks that Jesus will build his church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18)
  • entrust ourselves and our congregation to Christ’s faithful leadership
  • pray for wisdom and discernment for our Session leaders and pastoral staff
  • as the Book of Order urges us, pray too for the “peace, unity, and purity” of our Presbyterian Church (USA)

The actual text of Amendment 10A sent to the presbyteries for their vote:

The 219th General Assembly (2010) directed the Stated Clerk to send the following proposed amendment to the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative votes:
Shall G-6.0106b be amended by striking the current text and inserting new text in its place as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added is shown as italic.]

“b. Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament. Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

This Amendment replaces the “obedience” and “conformity” with “guided by” language.

Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly Action

Every two years our denomination’s General Assembly (GA) meets for a time of discernment, community engagement, and business transactions--to reflect on God’s provision, decisions align with God’s truth as revealed in Scripture and to determine the expanded mission of PC(USA) in future years.  The theme for this year’s assembly was John 7: 38:  Out of the believer’s hearts shall flow rivers of living water.  Commissioners, both pastors and lay persons elected from each of the 173 Presbyteries, attended GA as voting members.  This year Curt Hill, a FPC elder, attended the Minneapolis meeting as an alternate Commissioner from our Plains and Peaks Presbytery.  General information on the GA conference is available at www.pcusa.org/ga219 and specific information on the GA business meeting on www.pc-biz.org.

Because three major issues have been forwarded to Presbyteries for a vote by July 2011, the General Assembly’s discussion of these issues took on particular importance for Presbyteries and local churches. Since July, FPC’s Denominational Connections Committee (DCC) has carefully studied, reviewed, and discerned the GA’s proceedings related to the three subjects. Based on our study, we have recommended to Session that our pastors and elected elders vote NO on all three subjects when they are presented to our Presbytery.  Session approved the DCC recommendations, October 12, 2010. 

A fourth issue regarding non-ordained church employees was recommended by GA but does not require the Presbyteries to approve any action.  A separate Board of Pensions was urged to approve the GA recommendation. DCC recommended a letter from Session be sent to all Directors of this Board to not approve the GA request.  A letter was sent.

A summary of the DCC’s October 6, 2010, presentation for Session is attached to this memorandum.  An overview of the four issues follows:

A) Change to the Book of Order (BOO), Paragraph G-6.0106B-Ordination Standards 
This BOO change recommends revised wording of the ordination requirements for Ministers of the Word and Sacrament, Elders, and Deacons.  The original BOO paragraph provides specific, definable requirements and follows the Scriptures related to fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.  The proposed revision gives each governing body the responsibility to examine all candidates but not with the specific question regarding fidelity and chastity as stated above.  This leads to many subjective possibilities and confusion between churches and presbyteries for applying Ordination Standards.

B)  Revision to the Form of Government in the Book of Order
While the DCC agrees that some revision to the BOO would improve the governing processes of PC(USA) and its churches, we believe this major revision overreaches.  The revision, consisting of a series of several hundred specific changes, would eliminate many Biblical and historical foundations established over centuries and raise questions about governance if the changes were made.  New Scriptural and legal issues will further create divisions and consume valuable time and resources. The DCC recommends that specific revisions, enacted on a priority basis, would be more effective than the proposed extensive revision.  We believe our mission is God’s plan and should be the main focus for reaching the local community and the world with the good news of Christ Jesus.

C)   Addition of the Belhar Confession to the PC(USA) Book of Confessions (BoC)
The Confessions in the Book of Confessions have been compiled over many years.  The Belhar Confession was developed in the mid-1980s by South African churches in response to the racism of apartheid. However, at this time the major Christian denomination in South Africa does not support the Belhar Confession, and we believe that 11 Confessions in the current BoC cover Belhar’s main points. We see no need to add another Confession and incur the time and financial resources required to implement the decision.

 D)  Personnel Coverage Changes to the PC(USA) Board of Pensions Benefits Plan
In addition to the three subjects that require Presbytery votes, a fourth and very important subject has prompted action by our Session.  In July, GA urged the PC(USA) Board of Pensions (BOP) to extend benefits to same-gender domestic partners of non-ordained church employees and to the children of their same-gender domestic partners.  The GA also approved an increase of up to 1% of current dues for the Benefits Plan to be allocated among the various BOP benefits plans, pending BOP approval of extending benefits to same-gender partners and their children. FPC’s allocation would be significant as one of the large churches in PC(USA).  Because the 33 BOP Directors, not the church as a whole, decide on any changes to the Benefits Plan, churches that do not support this extension of benefits must appeal directly to the BOP for “relief of conscience.”  Upon the recommendation of the DCC, FPC’s Session has sent a letter to the BOP Directors stating our opposition to this GA suggested benefits plan extension.

These four issues continue to separate our churches through human governance and not Scripture.  We believe God’s plan is to be Christ Centered, Biblically Faithful and United in Mission. The time, talents and resources required, at all levels of the PCUSA, need to be focused on issues of declining membership and decreasing financial resources.

The DCC will continue to review important actions of the GA, Synods, and Presbyteries and report findings and recommendations to our Session. Additional information presented to Session and approved for website publication will be added to this page. Please contact members of Session at  or the Denominational Connections Committee at if you have any questions or comments.

The following provides information about each subject above:

A) Point Paper on Change in the Book of Order, Paragraph G-6.0106B Ordination Standards

Facts: The 219th General Assembly (2010) proposed a change to the PC (USA)Constitution regarding ordination standards by a vote of 373-323-4. This action does not change the Constitution.  It is a first step in the process.  A majority of the 173 Presbyteries would have to vote in the affirmative to approve the replacement by July 2011.

The current G-6.0106B paragraph provides the following standards for persons ordained as church leaders (deacon, elder or minister). The current version reads:

“Those who are called to office in the church are lead to a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church.  Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.  Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.”

The 219th General Assembly recommended deleting the above provision and replacing it with the following language:

“Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life.  The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation and suitability for the responsibilities of office.  The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation.  Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

Background:  This is the fourth attempt to delete or change the standard since it was added to the Constitution (Book of Order) following the General Assembly (GA) approval in 1996.  The 218th GA in San Jose, California, approved a similar overture in 2008.  It was rejected by a majority of the denomination’s presbyteries, but the vote was closer than before.  The close contest (94 voting no and 78 voting yes on the amendment) was treated as a victory by the LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) lobby.

This proposed amendment would replace the specific wording currently in effect with ambiguous, meaningless wording, thereby removing from the Book of Order all standards for sexual behavior from the requirement of minister, elders and deacons.  However, sexual expression is a central issue in the way we live out our faith.  To confess that Jesus Christ is Lord means that we allow every area of our lives to be ordered by Scripture, including our sexuality.  Our current ordination standards for leadership are the church bearing witness to the truth revealed in Scripture and expressed by our Confessions.

Scripture: Scripture speaks often, clearly and with one voice on marriage and sexual expression. The Bible describes incest, adultery, bestiality, fornication prostitution and homosexuality in negative, prohibitive terms (1 Cor 6:18).  Involvement in unrepentant ongoing sexual sin is one of the reasons Paul gave for excommunicating a church member (1 Cor. 5:1-5; 11-13).  Genesis 2:24: “And a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”.

At the recent GA, Hector Reynoso of Mission Presbytery related to the GA about the proposed change “It’s either a sin or its not, but it’s not both.

Denominational Concerns Committee recommendation:  It appears this subject will be on the agenda at the February 2011 Plains and Peaks Presbytery meeting as an educational topic and for discussion.  The vote of the Presbytery will take place in May 2011 at the Presbytery meeting.

The committee strongly recommends that the Session recommend the Elder commissioners and pastors attending the May Presbytery meeting from our church vote “No” on the change recommended by the 219th GA to the Book of Order paragraph G-6.0106B.

B)  Point Paper on the Proposal to Replace the Entire Form of Government Section of the Book of Order with New Form (nFog)

(Source: Presbyterian Coalition, Reclaim Biblical Teaching)

Questions Presbyters should ask themselves before voting on new Form of Government--nFOG

  • Is a whole new Form of Government necessary, or could amendments to the present FOG achieve the goals that most Presbyterians want?
  • At this time in the life of the PC(USA), would we be able to maintain our unity without the important safeguards the nFOG leaves out?
  • Is the nFOG demonstrably better than the present FOG? If not, why should it be adopted?

There are serious problems with the proposed document.  Here are some of them:

Theological problems:  The nFOG creates new standards of faith.

  • The nFOG introduces universalism, claiming that God redeems “all people.” (F-101 first sentence).
  • The nFog radically expands the church’s commitment to inclusion, welcoming people regardless of “theological conviction” instead of simply embracing “different theological convictions consistent with the Reformed tradition” (nFOG F-1.0403 vs. current G-4.0403)

Ordination and Installation Issues: The nFOG changes our standards of faith and life

  • The nFOG’s “diversity” wording will allow church courts and governing bodies to make the “fidelity/chastity” requirement in G-6.016b ineffective.  The nFog guarantees “full participation and representation in…governance…to all persons or groups.”  This would allow persons currently ineligible for ordination to claim the right to hold office in the church (nFOG F-1.0403 vs. current G-4.0403).  
  • nFOG G-2.0607d removes the five areas of examination presently found in G-14.0431 a.  The number and subjects of ordination exams will no longer be in the Form of Government, and thus, can be changed by the vote of any General Assembly with no need for presbytery approval.
  • nFOG G-20607d removes specifications about how ordination examinations are graded (currently found in G-14.0432).  Presbyteries could require different grades, or grade examinations in different ways.
  • nFOG G-2.0504c would allow interim pastors to become the next installed pastor of the churches they serve by a three-quarters vote.  This practice is currently proscribed under G-14.0553.

The nFOG makes the Presbyterian Church hierarchical

  • Governing bodies which are now described as “separate and independent” would simply become “distinct”.  (Current G-9.0103 vs. nFOG F-3.0203 and G-3.0101).  Under the nFOG, presbyteries have greatly increased powers while congregations and sessions have greatly diminished powers. 
  • The nFOG gives each presbytery complete power in determining the process for calling pastors, removing many of the specifics currently found in G-11.0502d and G-14.0530
  • nFOG would require members to put themselves under the authority of denominational leadership, rather voluntarily placing themselves under the leadership of officers whom they elect (Current G-70103 vs. nFOG G-1.0103).
  • The hierarchical structure of the nFOG will make it less likely for courts to rule that congregations own their property.

 The nFOG removes precedents and protections

  • There is no guarantee that any of the precedents and previous Authoritative Interpretations issued by GAPJC or the General Assembly will remain in effect.  We could be starting over with no judicial history and a very brief Form of Government document.
  • nFOG G-3.0109 would allow any governing body to form a commission of as few as two ministers and two elders (compare to current G-9.0504b). Immense power could thus be placed in very few hands.
  • nFOG G-2.0109 removes many limits on the powers that can be delegated to commissions.   Under nFOG, a presbytery commission could be empowered to dissolve pastoral relationships even if the pastor or congregation does not concur (compare to current G-11.0502h).
  • nFOG G-3.0109 would remove specific process rights for pastors in termination processes currently found in G-9.0505(b) 1 and 2, along with nine Authoritative Interpretations related to these rights.
  • G-11.0101 presently requires larger congregations to have greater representation at presbytery meetings.  nFOG G-3.0301 removes these specifics, so larger congregations could be under-represented.

Inconsistencies and omissions lead to confusion

  • Each governing body will have to examine its manuals of policies and procedures, adopting new rules to replace those that are currently found in the constitution.  This will reduce consistency across the church.
  • The nFOG has internal inconsistencies:  the requirement that all persons be guaranteed representation in governance (F-1.0403) conflicts with the requirement that persons refusing to repent of sin not be ordained or installed (G-2.0104b).  More litigation in church courts will be required to sort out these conflicts.
  • Parliamentary procedure (Robert’s Rules of Order) becomes only one option, as the nFOG allows for and promotes alternate means of “discernment”.  (nFOG F-3.0205 and G-3.0105)
  • The relationship of the “Foundations” section to the rest of the Book of Order is not defined.  The courts will have to decide if the Foundations take precedence over and interpret other sections.     
  • Specific timing of the public notice of a congregational meeting is not in the nFOG  (notice must now be given on two successive Sundays, according to G-7.0303b).  Snap congregational meetings could be called.
  • G-ll.0201 currently says that the business addressed in a called presbytery meeting is limited to those items announced in the call.  This rule is removed from nFOG G-3.0304.

C) Review and Recommendation Concerning the GA Proposal to Add the Belhar Confession to the Book of Confessions (BoC)         

The General Assembly voted 525-150, July 2010, to send the Belhar Confession to the presbyteries for their votes to include the Belhar Confession as the 12th doctrinal statement in the denomination’s Book of Confessions.  The Belhar Confession was developed in the mid-1980s by the South African churches as their theological response to the racism of apartheid.  The confession is valuable, proponents say, because it seeks to address issues of racial justice and reconciliation that are still relevant today.

Some of the rational for the voting against inclusion of Behar follows:

Supporters indicate that their strongest argument is that Belhar would become the only confession that Africa and the Southern hemisphere have contributed to the global church.  Belhar is not widely accepted even in South Africa. Belhar was accepted by the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa which has a membership of less than five hundred thousand with 700 congregations.  The much larger Dutch Reformed Church, with 1.2 million members with almost one thousand two hundred congregations, rejects Belhar as “false doctrine”. 

  1. Despite supporter’s assertions, there is no significant gap in the classical confessions. Our confessions already speak to the issues of justice and discrimination in the areas of racism and ethic differences (e.g. The Confession of 1967: 9.44), or for special care of the poor and suffering (1967: 9,46). Belhar would push the BoC beyond the Bible with extension into multiple political agendas. The Bible is not a witness among others [i.e., confessions], but the witness without parallel. (1967: 9.27).  
  2. Supporters argue Belhar is “needed”.  A Presbyterian Panel survey indicates that only 17% of pastors, 1% of members and 2% of elders are even familiar with Belhar….probably because it came from the “top-down” by a 12 member Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethic Concerns (ACREC). It is not as though there is any grass root conviction of church leaders or members across the U.S. who support Belhar.  [source: “Belhar Talking Points” by Sue Cyre, Executive Director of Theology Matters]

The above list is drawn from an amalgamation of information gathered by 4 members of FPC BOULDER’S Denominational Concerns Committee (“DCC”) augmented by attending a panel discussion held on 9/20/10 at Valmont Pres. led by 4 of P&P’ s Commissioners who attended the General Assembly (“GA”)   

Global issues to consider about adding ANY confessions to our Book of Confessions (available online at the PC(USA) website:

  • Presbyteries must review and apply The Assessment of Proposed Amendments (p. xxxii-xxxvi) at the beginning of The Book of Confessions (BoC) before adding any confession to it.
  • BoC and Ordination (see p. xxiv)  -- As ordained leaders we need to be ready to accept direction from the Confessions as part of our ordination vows.  That merits careful study before adding any new documents!
  • What does Presbyterian mean? “…the church’s confessions are central to its identity and integral to its ordered ministries…” (p. xxxii) Does adding Belhar alter or clarify that identity in a positive way?  Is it worth the investment required to effect the change?
  • As stated in Section III The Church and its Confessions, “There are numerous reasons to know, respect, and use creeds and confessions that may not be sufficient to warrant their inclusion in The Book of Confessions.“  So choosing not to add Belhar to the BoC doesn’t mean it can’t be used in the church’s work.
  • Financial resources are limited at the denomination, Presbytery and local church levels.  Allocating resources for a new BoC at this time are not appropriate.

Much additional information and comment about this issue is available online at http://www.pcusa.org/.  Enter “Belhar Confession” in the search bar.  The websites for the Presbyterian Coalition, http://www.presbycoalition.org/,  Presbyterians for Renewal,  http://www.pfrenewal.org/, and Theology Matters, www.theologymatters.com are also very informative.

Recommendation:   The DCC recommends to our Session that our elected commissioners to Plains and Peaks Presbytery meetings vote NO regarding the addition of Belhar Confession to our current Book of Confessions.

 D) Review and Recommendation concerning GA request for Mandated Subsidies and BOP

Quote from General Assembly News area of  PC(USA) website:

“The General Assembly urged the Board of Pensions to adopt amendments to the Benefits Plan to extend eligibility for spousal and dependent benefits under the Plan to Benefits Plan members, their same‐gender domestic partners, and the children of their same‐gender domestic partners, on the same basis as, and equivalent to, benefits made available to Benefits Plan members, their spouses, and the children of their spouses.

The General Assembly also approved an increase in dues for the Benefits Plan of up to 1 percent, effective January 1, 2012, to be allocated among the plans of the Board of Pensions, including but not limited to the Pension Plan, as the Board, in its sole discretion, deems necessary to fund the cost of the additional benefits. “

RECOMMENDATION by DCC:  We recommend Session submit a letter to the Board of Pensions and its members to uphold Scripture in their decisions and NOT approve the change to extend benefits to same-gender domestic partners, and the children of their same-gender domestic partners.  State that you will be in prayer for them as they strive to lead and direct in a positive way through these issues.

Please note that the Board of Directors of the BoP is scheduled to meet Oct. 21-23 to consider this request.  Letters will probably be most effective if Board members receive them before that meeting. (A copy of letter sent October 14th by Session to BoP follows below )

For additional information on this issue, please see the supplemental document titled PROBLEM; Mandated Subsidies by Congregations for Same-Sex Partnerships (at the end of this attachment) and the following comments from online discussion on the PC(USA) website:

July 26, 2010 - John Mitchell – “I’m fairly new to PC(USA).  This discussion about domestic partner benefits – which sounds like it is a “done deal” as soon as the implementation wrinkles can be ironed out – begs the question why the church is employing practicing homosexuals in the first place.”

July 27, 2010 – David L. Bierschwale – “It is my hope and prayer that the directors will take a firm stand for our Biblical and doctrinal teaching on this issue.  This is nothing short of tyranny, and hubris of breathtaking proportions.  If this were to be approved, then less than 400 persons will have decided for over 2.1 million members and ministers.  This is an issue which should require a majority vote of the presbyteries.  If this is approved, the trickle of an exodus of congregations from the PC(USA) will become a flood; and the demise of a once great branch of the universal church of the one true God will take place in a matter of years, if not months.  Jesus Christ can transform all of us sinners—whether those acting on homosexual temptations, or any others.

July 9, 2010 – Rev. Harry Hughes of New Castle Presbytery:  “[This action] would validate same-sex relationships in violation of church policy and Scripture,” adding that the measure would “increase the level of conflict and division” in the PC(USA).

Copy of letter sent by FPC Session to BoP Directors, October 14, 2010

October 13, 2010
Ms. Carol Sheffey Parham
594 Pinedale Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401

Dear Carol:

The 219thGeneral Assembly has urged the Board of Pensions to extend benefits to same-sex partners of PC (USA) non ordained employees (“members”) through the BOP plans.  These new benefits would be funded through a required (~1%) increase in dues paid out of offerings by PC (USA) congregations.  The Session of First Presbyterian Church, Boulder, Colorado, strongly urge you to not approve this request. We believe it leads the Presbyterian Church to condone, and in fact encourage behavior that Scripture calls sin. 

This GA action requires members and congregations to financially support your approval of their request.  At this point in time, the PC (USA) Book of Confessions and Book of Order do not interpret Scripture to accept this lifestyle choice as appropriate for Christians.  Thus Presbyterian Churches should not be employing those who have made this lifestyle choice. The moral cost of encouraging it through providing retirement and health benefits as described is far more significant to the church than the financial cost. 

The GA action does include a “relief of conscience” provision, but such provisions in other actions have not proven to actually provide a relief of conscience.  FPC Boulder, throughout our human deliberations and discernment concerning this issue realize God, in His Word, remains constant that homosexuality is not His plan for us.  Your actions as a Board will either lead us as Presbyterians closer to God or further away.  Please encourage everyone to seek His will for the Church.

We will continue to pray for God’s leading, your wisdom and leadership in a positive way during these challenging times.

In Christ,
Judy Kellum
Clerk of Session

PROBLEM: Mandated Subsidies by Congregations for Same-Sex Partnerships

(Extracted from a document prepared by the Presbyterian Coalition, a FPC supported organization)

General Assembly “urges” provision of benefits to same-sex partners through mandated Board of Pensions coverage. Explanation and action plan.

The 219th General Assembly (GA) of the PC(USA), at its meeting in Minneapolis in July, 2010, voted to “urge” the Board of Pensions (BOP) to extend benefits—both retirement and health—to the same-sex partners of PC(USA) employees (“members”) covered through the BOP. The wording of the action includes those partners’ children, and would provide the coverage on the same basis as BOP coverage is provided to heterosexual spouses of “members” and to children of those spouses. Heterosexual domestic partners who are not married are not covered, and would not be covered under this plan. These new benefits will be funded through increased dues paid out of offerings by PC(USA) congregations. All congregations with installed pastors are required to participate in the BOP plan. Because of the “community” nature of the plan, churches do not pay premiums directly for employees’ coverage, but instead contribute as “dues” a mandated percentage of their pastors’ “effective salary” (salary, housing and other allowances) to cover all benefits for everyone in the plan.

Dues increase

Every church member and every congregation is affected by this decision of the General Assembly.

The GA action requires members and congregations to support—with their tithes and offerings—practices that Scripture and our confessions call sin. Thus faithful church members would be forced financially to “bless” practices that God does not bless—a clear complicity in the sin. The moral cost of the GA action is far more significant to the church than the financial cost, but the GA did authorize the BOP to raise mandatory dues up to one percentage point, from the current 31.5% to 32.5% of effective salary, which would be a 3.17% cost increase for congregations. The coverage and the dues increase would be effective January 1, 2012.

The action of the GA “urges” the Board of Pensions (BOP) of the PC(USA) to: “extend eligibility for spousal and dependent benefits under the Plan to Benefits Plan members, their same-gender domestic partners, and the children of their same-gender domestic partners, on the same basis as, and equivalent to, benefits made available to Benefits Plan members, their spouses, and the children of their spouses.”

Because the BOP is an independent corporation, the GA cannot “instruct” the BOP. However, BOP representatives present at the Assembly meeting repeatedly promised to provide this coverage if the GA requested it. Although an increase in Pension Plan (retirement) dues requires GA approval, Medical Plan dues can be increased without GA approval. But again, increase in dues is not the primary issue.

“The Normative Values of the Church”

In its official comment on this item of business, prepared for committee consideration, the BOP wrote,

“The Board does not take a position on the policy issue of whether to extend benefits to these same-gender partners or not, but will follow the normative values of the church in so far as legally possible. The Board believes that these matters must be decided by the church through action of the General Assembly” [emphasis added].

The BOP comment also included:

“The question of whether to enroll same-gender partners of ministers of Word and Sacrament, elders, and deacons must be addressed by the General Assembly. The Board also notes that the Book of Order at G-6.0106(b) declares that “[t]hose who are called to office in the church [including elders, deacons, and ministers of the Word and Sacrament,] are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness.”

With this constitutional mandate in mind, and absent contradictory direction from the General Assembly, the Board would exclude all ministers of the Word and Sacrament from eligibility to enroll a same-gender spouse or same-gender domestic partner”. [emphasis added]

These excerpts from the BOP comment show appropriate intentions (to “follow the normative values of the church” and to abide by its “constitutional mandate”), but the comment does not apply those intentions consistently or logically. The PC(USA) Constitution does not single out ministers of the Word and Sacrament as having a different or higher manner of life standard than deacons and elders. Furthermore, the standard for Christian living is the same for all persons, regardless of whether or not they are officers in the church. Presbyterians believe “These ordained officers differ from other members in function only” (G-6.0102).

Although the fidelity/chastity standard is explicitly included in the requirements for our officers, the Constitution of the PC(USA) acknowledges fidelity/chastity to be God’s moral requirement for everyone and states that the fidelity/chastity requirement is “among the[se] standards” taught in Scripture and the constitutional confessional standards of the church. Also please note that wording of the action of the GA drew no such distinction between ministers and other plan members. It flatly says “members” meaning members of the Benefits Plan. This certainly presents a dilemma to the BOP.

The “normative values of the church” to which the BOP refers in its comment are properly found not in a request of one General Assembly, but rather in the denomination’s Constitution, which has been adopted by the whole church—the General Assembly plus the majority of the presbyteries (G-6.0106b).

General Assembly not an employer

The appeal made to commissioners at GA was to bring the denomination in line with what the GA has advised employers to do. But the GA itself is not the employer of the persons whose same-sex partners will be covered by the revised Plan. The GA, as a governing body, is not an employer. It does not make personnel decisions. GA agencies and entities—the GAMC, the OGA, etc.—and the congregations and institutions of the denomination are the employers. The GA could have acted without coercion, though not with less moral import, by recommending that employers provide this coverage in other ways if they so choose. In fact, this alternative* was presented to the GA.

The GA action was not an appeal to employers. Instead, it would impose a requirement that the tithes and offerings of all of the people in the churches pay for this new coverage through mandatory Pension Plan dues. Thus, the GA action would require church members who uphold the “fidelity/chastity” requirement to pay for benefits for same-sex partners of employees, which means subsidizing a lifestyle Scripture and our Constitution call sin. Approving the GA request would obviously place the board members in the undesirable position of requiring churches to promote through subsidy a lifestyle in direct opposition to the constitutional standards of the denomination the BOP exists to serve.

The BOP is an independent corporation. The minutes of the Board of Directors for 2010 do not indicate that the Board itself has taken any definite action to concur with the assurance board CEO Robert Maggs made to the GA—that the board will cover what the GA asks them to cover. The board, which met in July and will meet again in October of 2010, is accessible to churchwide comment. They received more than two hundred letters of protest in July.

Relief of Conscience?

In another section of its action, the GA ”highly urged” the BOP to consider a “relief of conscience” provision similar to that provided to those who object to the BOP’s payment for abortions. Those who worked with the BOP to design that “relief of conscience” plan relating to abortion coverage report that it fails to provide the relief sought.

Non-payment of increase?

Because it is wrong to mandate that church members subsidize a homosexual lifestyle, many will examine the BOP Plan, the laws of the State of Pennsylvania (which governs the BOP), and the means at Sessions’ disposal to determine not whether, but how, to avoid paying for this coverage. Surely a means within the plan’s provisions can be found that does not jeopardize pastors’ benefits. The Board of Directors of the BOP can avoid a scenario in which the dues structure begins to face the same financial uncertainty experienced by the Per Capita Budget, potentially resulting in instability in the Pension Plan. The Constitution of the PC(USA) gives sessions unqualified control over the budget and expenditure of the offerings of their congregations (see G-10.0102 i).

The upshot is that the GA took an action that negatively affects every congregation remunerating a pastor or any other covered employee. No provision is available for seeking the will of the congregations. The action has a financial effect, but the moral effect is far greater: it is the imposition of an immoral requirement contrary to the standards agreed upon by the whole church. The imposition, if approved by the BOP, will not take effect until January, 2012. It is possible that we Presbyterians can help the BOP avoid this moral disaster.

The most appropriate resolution

An action of the Board of Pensions to refer to other insurers employers within the denomination who desire to provide coverage for same-sex domestic partners is the correct option. It would not conflict with the denomination’s constitutional standards, it removes the injustice of forcing participation against congregations’ consciences, and it would be more cost effective to BOP operations. It also removes the Board of Pensions from serving as the battlefield over standards.

The Presbyterian Coalition urges sessions and individual members to consider the implications of the GA’s action on the Board of Pensions and same-sex partner benefits, and to join us in implementing the action plan outlined below. And may we, all sinners, hear God’s call to a godly life even as we confess the sins we bear.

A Proposal for Action

What next? Let us together commit to:

Work in concert with other concerned Presbyterians as individuals, sessions, and groups to discuss these serious matters with the leadership of the BOP. Urge them to consider carefully the untenable position the GA has put the BOP in when it asked the BOP to implement Plan changes that contradict the denomination’s own Constitution and urge the leadership not to adopt the changes the GA requested.

Raise our concerns immediately and often with individual members of the BOP Board of Directors over the next 18 months, and encourage our congregation members to communicate their concerns about the immorality of the requirement by means of letters sent directly to members of the BOP Board of Directors, urging them not to adopt the changes the GA requested.

Plan how sessions will together resist participation in a Plan that mandates complicity in what is contrary to the constitutional standards of the whole church if the BOP implements the action requested by the GA.

Work tirelessly to preserve the current wording of G-6.0106b and to defeat the proposed new Form of Government which erodes the effect and force of G-6.0106b.

The Presbyterian Coalition Executive Committee:
Jerry Andrews, Co-Moderator: Pastor, First Presbyterian Church; San Diego, CA
Nancy Cross, Co-Moderator: Elder, First Presbyterian Church; San Antonio, TX
Liz Arakelian: Pastor, Grosse Pointe Woods Presbyterian Church; Grosse Point Woods, MI
Peter Barnes: Pastor, Westlake Hills Presbyterian Church; Austin, TX
Jim Cahalan: Elder, First Presbyterian Church; Edmond, OK
Steven Marsh: Pastor, Eastminster Presbyterian Church; Wichita, KS
Jim Tony: Pastor, Palos Park Presbyterian Community Church; Palos Park, IL

NOTE: To further examine and more fully understand the significance of what the GA requested regarding extending plan coverage, you can read the General Assembly actions in light of the background information, the BOP Plan, and the PC(USA) Constitution.

*Item 18-06. The following is the text of the item approved by the GA:

That the 219th General Assembly (2010):

1. Urge the Board of Pensions to adopt amendments to the Benefits Plan to extend eligibility for spousal and dependent benefits under the Plan to Benefits Plan members, their same-gender domestic partners, and the children of their same-gender domestic partners, on the same basis as, and equivalent to, benefits made available to Benefits Plan members, their spouses, and the children of their spouses.

2. Approve an increase in dues for the Benefits Plan of up to 1 percent, effective January 1, 2012, to be allocated among the plans of the Board of Pensions, including but not limited to the Pension Plan, as the Board, in its sole discretion, deems necessary to fund the cost of the additional benefits. Should the Board not implement these benefits for any reason, approval of the increase in dues is rescinded.

Comment: That the Board of Pensions be highly urged to provide relief of conscience, to be implemented simultaneously with these actions, for those congregations for whom these actions cause a moral dilemma.