When the original Peace, Unity, and Purity report of the PC(USA) came out in 2006, the emphasis was on pushing the ordination question back down to the presbytery level. It was suggested that they were closer to the candidate in question and could make a better decision than a universal standard of one size fits all. The earlier tradition of “scruples” was revived and candidates were permitted to announce that some part of the standards and beliefs required of Presbyterian pastors violated the candidates conscience and therefore s/he had a scruple against it. Having announced such a scruple, the candidates’ committee would examine her or him and decide whether this scruple would prevent the person from appropriately fulfilling the office to which s/he sought ordination. If not, then the ordination would proceed. This, of course, put the weight of responsibility on the presbytery to do a careful examination and discern God’s will in each case.
Those who have kept an eagle eye out to spot any loosening of the barrier that prevented the ordination of gays and lesbians, immediately protested that this allowed for what was labeled local option. Such candidates would simply move to the more liberal presbyteries to seek care. The latest decison in GA 218 (2008), for all practical purposes continued to move in this direction. So the question that is raised is whether there is a threat to the church if presbyteries are given the authority to ordain those that they deem appropriate.
I think those who fear the local option movement are correct in their perception and wrong in their judgment. There are presbyteries who are ready to ordain people who are, in their discernment, called by God and who happen to be gay. Like in the marriage controversy where Massachusetts and California now permit legal marriage to take place among gays, there will be presbyteries within the denomination who will allow ordination of gays and lesbians to take place. Since the votes over the last 30 years have revealed that both members and clergy are almost evenly split over this issue, would this not permit both positions to be represented among the clergy?
Some will say that allowing this to take place will challenge the standards of the church that have stood for centuries. It is, they say, one more example of the church accomodating herself to the values of society rather than proclaiming a better way. The problem with that argument is seen in the history of the church. Almost from the beginning, and in a major way beginning in the year 1,000, and then in the 1500s, the church has shown a great ability to remain vital while having diverse and at times contradictory understandings of vital components of the faith, including our understanding of Jesus.
If, as Jesus said, the central component of our belief is the love of God and the love of neighbor and all else is commentary on those two central beliefs, then we can afford to “work out our faith with fear and trembling,” confident that God is in charge and by the fruits of our faith, the truth shall be made clear.
