The theological differences regarding the PUP Report have been discussed above, but it is not just the theology which has created division. The way that this report has been handled within our polity has created a significant rupture of trust within our connectional system.

Since the “Fidelity and Chastity” clause was added to our ordination standards, (G-6.0106b), it has been the most affirmed portion of our Book of Order. It was affirmed by three different votes through the Presbyteries, directing the General Assembly to maintain its standards in the Book of Order. Those successive votes showed ever stronger support for this Constitutional ordination position. The most recent vote, which followed the 2001 General Assembly, showing that more than 70% of presbyteries affirmed the standard.

After three different defeats by those seeking to remove the Fidelity and Chastity clause, a different route was tried which finally succeeded. Instead of making a change in the constitution itself, they proposed an “Authoritative Interpretation” (AI) of the Fidelity and Chastity clause and created room for Presbyteries to utilize their “local option” about ordination standards. Because this was not, they argued, a constitutional change, it did not need to go back to the Presbyteries for a vote. More traditional churches, like ourselves, argue that it was most definitely a constitutional change. Practically speaking, the AI changed “shall” to “may” in our Constitution without going through the Constitutional process of amendment by a majority-approval in the Presbyteries.

This action of the Theological Task Force, and its approval by the 2006 General Assembly, broke our denomination’s covenantal relationship as expressed by our mutual agreement and adherence to our Presbytery-ratified Constitution. This breaking of our Constitutional process, and the covenantal relationship it represents, is as important to many as the question of ordination itself.

This breach of trust was further deepened when the “Louisville Papers” were shared among presbyteries. At the same time the denomination was urging the differing sides to “mutual forbearance” through the PUP report, Louisville was preparing these papers to advise Presbytery leaders on threatening and coercive tactics they could use against congregations upset by the PUP report and other issues. (To review these documents, see Summary, Paper #1-pdf, Paper #2-pdf)

We are still waiting to see how the AI will be handled within our judicial system. The AI indicates that it allows Presbyteries to make their own decisions as to the “essentials” of the faith. However, Synods have brought denominational court cases against Presbyteries which have, through their own majority rule, exercised their option by declaring that within their bounds, upholding the Constitution is an essential of the faith. The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific ruled unconstitutional the Sacramento Presbytery decision on this option.