Overture 20: The Findings of the 2003 Judicial Commission

At Calvin Community Church, Gore, on 6 July 2004, the Presbytery of Mataura met and was constituted.

<typohead type="3">Among other things: </typohead>

The Presbytery agreed to adopt and transmit the following overture to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand appointed to meet in Christchurch on 19 September 2004.

Whereas a 2003 Judicial Commission looking into the case of Deborah Gordon concluded that "the Church has no policy on the licensing, ordination or induction of practising homosexuals"

And Whereas this has been interpreted (by the Assembly Executive Secretary and others) to mean that a Presbytery could license, ordain or induct a practicing homosexual, and therefore the conclusions impact upon the whole of the Presbyterian Church not just upon the specific case of Miss Gordon

And Whereas prior to the report of the Judicial Commission, the policy of the Presbyterian Church was understood to be that Presbyteries could not license, ordain or induct practising homosexuals, as is evidenced by the following:

The Book of Order and Judicial Reference Group unanimously advised the 1999 Assembly that, on the basis of previous Assembly decisions, practising homosexuals should not be licensed, ordained or inducted.

Mr John Marshall (the Convenor of the Book of order and Judicial Reference Group) reported to the Judicial Commission that "In practice, the statement has been acted on by the church" (i.e. the church understood that practising homosexuals should not be licensed, ordained or inducted.)

Various recent Assemblies have been advised that that is the position of the church and decisions have been made on that basis. Repeatedly, when proposals that would have allowed practising homosexuals in leadership have been before Assemblies, the question has been asked, "Would this overturn the current position of the church?" The answer has been that it would. People have voted on that basis.

The Commission on Diversity reporting in 1999, said, "We now understand that, in brief, the position is that, while there is no definitive ruling prohibiting courts of the Church licensing, ordaining or inducting practising homosexuals, in the light of decisions of the 1985 Assembly (?that homosexual acts are sinful´) and 1991 Assembly (?that God´s intention for sexual relationships, as affirmed by Jesus Christ, is loving, mutual and faithful marriage between a man and a woman, and that intimate sexual expressions outside of that context fall short of God´s standards"), Presbyteries/UDCs and Sessions/Parish Councils should not license, ordain or induct a practising homosexual, and that the courts of the Church can be expected, on appeal or complaint, to uphold the church´s standards and Assembly decisions in determining the case."

</typolist>

And Whereas the decision of the 2003 Judicial Commission is clearly in conflict with the church´s former understanding and would seek to change that understanding

And Whereas a Judicial Commission does not have authority to set or change the policy of the General Assembly

And Whereas the Judicial Commission was right to say that the 1994 General Assembly stated that "there are currently no specific regulations barring the ordination of homosexuals" (p.11) but was wrong to later change that wording to "the church has no policy" (p.15) since policy is determined by decisions of General Assemblies and does not necessarily need to be enshrined in specific regulation, i.e. to say that the church had no specific regulation is not the same as to say that the church had no policy but the Judicial Commission failed to make that distinction

And Whereas the policy of the church has, in fact, been established by the decisions of the 1985 and 1991 General Assemblies (as quoted above) and they remain in force until overturned by a subsequent General Assembly, which has not happened

And Whereas the Presbyterian Church therefore does have a policy and the Judicial Commission was wrong to say that it did not

And Whereas a change in the church´s policy on this matter would be an innovation so grave as to require approval under the Barrier Act, and this has not been obtained

And Whereas having "no policy" would be unhelpful in that it creates confusion in the church at large and provides no guidance for a Presbytery/UDC, or other church body, faced with making a difficult ruling

<typohead type="3">It is hereby overtured that: </typohead>

This Assembly reaffirm that the policy of the Presbyterian Church is that established by the decisions of the 1985 and 1991 General Assemblies:

</typolist>

that homosexual acts are sinful (1985);

that God´s intention for sexual relationships, as affirmed by Jesus Christ, is loving, mutual and faithful marriage between a man and a woman, and that intimate sexual expressions outside of that context fall short of God´s standards (1991);

and that, consequently, the position of the church continues to be that "Presbyteries/UDCs and Sessions/Parish Councils should not license, ordain or induct a practising homosexual, and that the courts of the Church can be expected, on appeal or complaint, to uphold the church´s standards and Assembly decisions in determining the case",

or that the General Assembly determines otherwise as in its wisdom it shall consider best.

</typolist>

The Presbytery appointed Rev Peter Cheyne and Trevor Parkinson to support the overture before the Assembly.

Extracted from the records of the Presbytery by

Beverly Knapp
Presbytery Clerk