So, after all the fussin’ that went on in Acts 15, how did the first General Assembly finally make its decision? Peter’s comments are recorded first. He recounted his own experience of God’s grace, probably referring to that amazing outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius, recorded in Acts chapter 10.
Next, Paul and Barnabas also spoke of the things they had witnessed God doing during their ministry among the Gentiles, the miracles and wonders they had seen. In other words, however much Peter may have disagreed with Paul at the time the letter to the Galatians was written, by the time the Assembly itself rolled around, the two apostles were in complete agreement. Both of them pointed to the same sort of evidence – the proof of the mighty acts God had done in the lives of the Gentile believers.
From these two reports, we might thus be tempted to think that the Assembly made its decision based simply on reason and experience. But that is not the case. The Assembly did not come to a conclusion until James quoted from the book of Amos, demonstrating how the Old Testament Scriptures agreed with the testimony of the apostles.
And so, at the end of the day, the Assembly based its decision not on who Peter and Paul were, and not simply on what Peter and Paul said had happened. The crucial factor for the Assembly was what the prophet Amos had said.
This, then, is what we Presbyterians must do at the General Assembly this summer in Minneapolis. If we try to base our decisions on who is speaking or on what makes sense to our reason or to our feelings, we will keep on fussin’. But if we are willing to submit our reason and our experience to the Word of God, which we used to call the only infallible rule of faith and practice, we might move just a little closer to that peace which we all desire so much.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Fussin' Presbyterians
Why do we Presbyterians have so much fussin’ to do? Wouldn’t it be so much easier just to have bishops or popes make all the hard decisions for us? Perhaps it would be. And it is probably in such an attempt to avoid conflict that some presbyteries have delegated much of their decision-making power to committees or commissions, or even to paid staff members.
But when we look at the way the Church dealt with disagreement in Acts 15, we don’t see any of those early Christians appealing to powerful personalities to impose peace on the Church. No, whatever our Roman Catholic friends might believe about Peter being the first Pope, no papal power is on display during that first General Assembly. Yes, Peter is the first person whose comments are recorded, but he doesn’t insist on everyone listening to him because Jesus gave him the keys of the Kingdom. In fact, he doesn’t mention those keys at all. (And if you look at I Peter 5, you’ll notice that Peter speaks to his fellow elders – not exactly the language you’d expect from the vicar of Christ.)
Paul and James were also at the first Assembly, and both of them either had written or would write numerous portions of Scripture. But neither one of them appealed to their apostolic authority. Neither of them said the Assembly should listen to them because of who they were.
No, when we look at Acts 15, we can’t help but come to the conclusion that the early Christians made decisions the way that we Presbyterians still do: by coming together in councils of elders to make decisions as a group. And the only way a group of elders can make decisions, especially when matters can’t be compromised, is to have what verse 6 says they had: much dispute. There’s just no way around it. Governing ourselves as Presbyterians, governing ourselves in the way that the early Church did, means we’re going to do some fussin’.
But when we look at the way the Church dealt with disagreement in Acts 15, we don’t see any of those early Christians appealing to powerful personalities to impose peace on the Church. No, whatever our Roman Catholic friends might believe about Peter being the first Pope, no papal power is on display during that first General Assembly. Yes, Peter is the first person whose comments are recorded, but he doesn’t insist on everyone listening to him because Jesus gave him the keys of the Kingdom. In fact, he doesn’t mention those keys at all. (And if you look at I Peter 5, you’ll notice that Peter speaks to his fellow elders – not exactly the language you’d expect from the vicar of Christ.)
Paul and James were also at the first Assembly, and both of them either had written or would write numerous portions of Scripture. But neither one of them appealed to their apostolic authority. Neither of them said the Assembly should listen to them because of who they were.
No, when we look at Acts 15, we can’t help but come to the conclusion that the early Christians made decisions the way that we Presbyterians still do: by coming together in councils of elders to make decisions as a group. And the only way a group of elders can make decisions, especially when matters can’t be compromised, is to have what verse 6 says they had: much dispute. There’s just no way around it. Governing ourselves as Presbyterians, governing ourselves in the way that the early Church did, means we’re going to do some fussin’.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Fussin' in the Family
Are Christians really called to be involved in feudin’ and fussin’ over doctrine? Surely, that can’t be right. Surely the reason that we have such fundamental disputes is because some of the people in the Church aren’t really believers, right?
Well, that’s what a lot of Presbyterians believe. And while it is of course possible that many Presbyterians could in fact be deceiving themselves about whether they are in fact saved, it remains the case that genuine, Spirit-filled, Jesus-following Christians always have disagreed, even over critically important issues.
Think again about the question of whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to join the church. This question was, as Paul rightly points out in his letter to the Galatians, central to the gospel. But with whom did Paul say he disagreed about this? In Galatians 2:11-13 Paul tells us that, at least for a time, the apostle Peter disagreed with him. One Scripture-writing apostle was disagreeing with another one. Surely the problem wasn’t that one or the other of them wasn’t saved.
And at the first General Assembly itself, described in Acts 15, verse 5 makes it plain that those who argued for the necessity of circumcision were not Pharisees who rejected the authority of Christ – they were Pharisees who believed. In short, this was an intramural disagreement. This dispute took place among believers.
So, how did these Christians who disagreed manage to come to a conclusion? Verse 6 reminds us that it was only after much dispute. And so if Spirit-filled folks like the apostles had to do some fussin’ before making a decision, why should we modern Presbyterians think we are any different?
Well, that’s what a lot of Presbyterians believe. And while it is of course possible that many Presbyterians could in fact be deceiving themselves about whether they are in fact saved, it remains the case that genuine, Spirit-filled, Jesus-following Christians always have disagreed, even over critically important issues.
Think again about the question of whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to join the church. This question was, as Paul rightly points out in his letter to the Galatians, central to the gospel. But with whom did Paul say he disagreed about this? In Galatians 2:11-13 Paul tells us that, at least for a time, the apostle Peter disagreed with him. One Scripture-writing apostle was disagreeing with another one. Surely the problem wasn’t that one or the other of them wasn’t saved.
And at the first General Assembly itself, described in Acts 15, verse 5 makes it plain that those who argued for the necessity of circumcision were not Pharisees who rejected the authority of Christ – they were Pharisees who believed. In short, this was an intramural disagreement. This dispute took place among believers.
So, how did these Christians who disagreed manage to come to a conclusion? Verse 6 reminds us that it was only after much dispute. And so if Spirit-filled folks like the apostles had to do some fussin’ before making a decision, why should we modern Presbyterians think we are any different?
Monday, May 31, 2010
In Praise of Fussin'
“Why can’t we all just get along?” That’s not just Rodney King’s question – it comes from the lips of so many Presbyterians as we approach what is likely to be yet another contentious General Assembly. It is only natural for Christians to want peace, because such a desire flows organically out of our love for one another.
And the fact is that most of the conservative congregations and individuals that have left the PCUSA over the last several years have done so precisely in pursuit of such peace. They have said that they are tired of fighting the same old battles over questions that should have obvious answers. They say they are ready instead to get on with what they consider to be the real ministry of the Church, to take the gospel into a lost and dying world.
But given the remnants of sin and self-deception that lie within us all, it is no wonder that the Church has always had disagreements. And some of those disagreements have been quite serious.
Think back to the days of the first General Assembly, which is described in Acts chapter 15. The question before the Assembly was whether Gentiles had to be circumcised and follow the Old Testament ceremonial law. In his letter to the Galatians, the apostle Paul indicated that this question struck at the very heart of the gospel. It threatened to overturn the tremendous truth of justification not by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. This was not an issue that could be compromised or swept under the rug.
Just so, many of the issues that face the 219th General Assembly simply can’t be compromised. It is either right to uphold women’s rights to be in absolute control over human reproduction, or it is right to defend the lives of helpless unborn babies. In the same way, it is either right to open the ordained offices of the Church to those who engage in homosexual practice, or it is right to exclude people who practice such behaviors on the grounds that they are unrepentant sinners.
So, as we see in Acts 15:6, the early Christians engaged in much dispute over issues that were of critical importance. We, their descendants in the faith, are called to do no less.
And the fact is that most of the conservative congregations and individuals that have left the PCUSA over the last several years have done so precisely in pursuit of such peace. They have said that they are tired of fighting the same old battles over questions that should have obvious answers. They say they are ready instead to get on with what they consider to be the real ministry of the Church, to take the gospel into a lost and dying world.
But given the remnants of sin and self-deception that lie within us all, it is no wonder that the Church has always had disagreements. And some of those disagreements have been quite serious.
Think back to the days of the first General Assembly, which is described in Acts chapter 15. The question before the Assembly was whether Gentiles had to be circumcised and follow the Old Testament ceremonial law. In his letter to the Galatians, the apostle Paul indicated that this question struck at the very heart of the gospel. It threatened to overturn the tremendous truth of justification not by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. This was not an issue that could be compromised or swept under the rug.
Just so, many of the issues that face the 219th General Assembly simply can’t be compromised. It is either right to uphold women’s rights to be in absolute control over human reproduction, or it is right to defend the lives of helpless unborn babies. In the same way, it is either right to open the ordained offices of the Church to those who engage in homosexual practice, or it is right to exclude people who practice such behaviors on the grounds that they are unrepentant sinners.
So, as we see in Acts 15:6, the early Christians engaged in much dispute over issues that were of critical importance. We, their descendants in the faith, are called to do no less.
Friday, April 2, 2010
A Cautionary Tale from History
In the 1850’s, the United States was convulsed by a similar moral problem: slavery. Some thought slavery was a moral evil, and sought to exclude it from the Federal territories west of the Mississippi River. Others thought it would be unjust to prevent citizens from taking legal “property” with them as they settled in those territories. There was no way to compromise the point, because slavery could not be both good and bad at the same time. Slavery could not be both legal and illegal in the territories at the same time.
The United States Congress decided to inject “local option” into this situation in the form of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Passed in 1854, the act allowed the citizens of the newly organized territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not slavery would be allowed within their bounds.
This act simply moved the contest from the national to the local level. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers rushed to fill up Kansas, each side desiring to form the majority so they could write the laws for the new state. Arguments and vote fraud led to violence, and the new territory soon became known as “Bleeding Kansas.”
When he was running for Senate in 1858, Abraham Lincoln commented on the Kansas-Nebraska Act with these words: “Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.”
Lincoln then quoted the words of Jesus, found in Matthew 12:25: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Lincoln went on to say, “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”
In the same way, the PCUSA may not be dissolved, but it must cease to be divided. The Church of Jesus Christ cannot condone either bigotry or perversion, but it must do one of these two things if “local option” becomes the law of the land. Eventually, a crisis must come.
The crisis may be acted out in 11,000 Presbyterian congregations, with every election of officers forcing the issue of sexual purity to be debated over and over again. The crisis may be acted out in 173 presbyteries, as every candidate presented for ordination becomes a battleground for one of the two parties to gain the upper hand. In either case, trust will be lost with every charge and accusation that is leveled, with every vote that is taken. The feeling of unity at every level of the church will weaken, and many members will leave the church to avoid the unpleasantness. One way or another, local option will always force Kansas to bleed.
But there is, of course, a more horrifying option. In 1858, Lincoln did not expect the Union to be dissolved, but that is exactly what happened less than three years later. It eventually cost the blood of over 600,000 Americans to rid the nation of slavery once and for all. The nation did eventually become “all one thing,” but only after 4 years of war.
Only time will tell if that sort of cleansing cataclysm will come upon the PCUSA. Only one thing is certain – the words of our Lord Jesus: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” One way or another, local option will guarantee the fall of the PCUSA.
The United States Congress decided to inject “local option” into this situation in the form of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Passed in 1854, the act allowed the citizens of the newly organized territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not slavery would be allowed within their bounds.
This act simply moved the contest from the national to the local level. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers rushed to fill up Kansas, each side desiring to form the majority so they could write the laws for the new state. Arguments and vote fraud led to violence, and the new territory soon became known as “Bleeding Kansas.”
When he was running for Senate in 1858, Abraham Lincoln commented on the Kansas-Nebraska Act with these words: “Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.”
Lincoln then quoted the words of Jesus, found in Matthew 12:25: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Lincoln went on to say, “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”
In the same way, the PCUSA may not be dissolved, but it must cease to be divided. The Church of Jesus Christ cannot condone either bigotry or perversion, but it must do one of these two things if “local option” becomes the law of the land. Eventually, a crisis must come.
The crisis may be acted out in 11,000 Presbyterian congregations, with every election of officers forcing the issue of sexual purity to be debated over and over again. The crisis may be acted out in 173 presbyteries, as every candidate presented for ordination becomes a battleground for one of the two parties to gain the upper hand. In either case, trust will be lost with every charge and accusation that is leveled, with every vote that is taken. The feeling of unity at every level of the church will weaken, and many members will leave the church to avoid the unpleasantness. One way or another, local option will always force Kansas to bleed.
But there is, of course, a more horrifying option. In 1858, Lincoln did not expect the Union to be dissolved, but that is exactly what happened less than three years later. It eventually cost the blood of over 600,000 Americans to rid the nation of slavery once and for all. The nation did eventually become “all one thing,” but only after 4 years of war.
Only time will tell if that sort of cleansing cataclysm will come upon the PCUSA. Only one thing is certain – the words of our Lord Jesus: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” One way or another, local option will guarantee the fall of the PCUSA.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Extra-Constitutional Options: Nullification and Anathematization
If a Biblically and Confessionally Orthodox Presbytery (BACOP) seeks to distance itself clearly from presbyteries that choose to ordain Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) it could take any number of extra-constitutional actions, depending on how the constitutional crisis plays itself out.
One option is to nullify any unbiblical actions with which the BACOP disagrees. Beaver-Butler Presbytery, for example, has already nullified an action of the General Assembly. On July 28, 2009, it declared the following as part of its “Open Theological Declaration to the PC(USA):”
“We will not be governed by the Authoritative Interpretation adopted by the 218th General Assembly because it is constitutionally, biblically, and judicially unsustainable. This interpretation cannot change the plain meaning of the Constitution, which still holds full force and effect in Beaver-Butler Presbytery.”
The full text of the Declaration can be found here:
http://www.layman.org/Files/Theo%20%20Declaration%20Final.pdf
If the language of the current constitution were not to be changed by amendment, but if the GAPJC were to allow congregations and presbyteries to ordain SAPHAs anyway, a BACOP could take a similar sort of action. The BACOP could nullify the acts of governing bodies with which it disagrees, declaring such acts to be of no force or effect within the BACOP’s bounds.
A more extreme alternative would be for the BACOP to anathematize congregations or presbyteries that ordain SAPHAs, declaring those governing bodies no longer to be organizational expressions of the true Church.
Both nullification and anathematization would make it clear that the BACOP is not in any way in agreement with ordinations it understands to be immoral or unconstitutional. Both actions would thus solve the worst of the moral dilemmas caused by local option – that of appearing to approve of the proclamation of a false gospel.
There are, however, many problems with both of these tactics. Anathematization would practically be very difficult – for how would any BACOP know whether another presbytery has in fact ordained a SAPHA? No one wants to condemn someone else based purely on hearsay or gossip, and there would be no meaningful way to conduct hearings on the matter, since the ordination would by definition be outside the BACOP’s jurisdiction.
The main problem with nullification is that it would have little practical effect – after all, the BACOP would have no power actually to undo the actions it would be nullifying. This means that the ordination of SAPHAs would continue within the PCUSA, no matter what any BACOP might say or do. The BACOP would still be legally implicated in those actions, as long as G-9.0103 remains in the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.”
Moreover, given the ability of higher governing bodies to overturn the actions of the governing bodies immediately below them, no extra-constitutional actions are likely to stand. Statements of nullification or anathematization could be, and probably would be, quickly overturned. Such extra-constitutional statements might also encourage Synods to appoint administrative commissions to prevent such irregular actions in the future.
One option is to nullify any unbiblical actions with which the BACOP disagrees. Beaver-Butler Presbytery, for example, has already nullified an action of the General Assembly. On July 28, 2009, it declared the following as part of its “Open Theological Declaration to the PC(USA):”
“We will not be governed by the Authoritative Interpretation adopted by the 218th General Assembly because it is constitutionally, biblically, and judicially unsustainable. This interpretation cannot change the plain meaning of the Constitution, which still holds full force and effect in Beaver-Butler Presbytery.”
The full text of the Declaration can be found here:
http://www.layman.org/Files/Theo%20%20Declaration%20Final.pdf
If the language of the current constitution were not to be changed by amendment, but if the GAPJC were to allow congregations and presbyteries to ordain SAPHAs anyway, a BACOP could take a similar sort of action. The BACOP could nullify the acts of governing bodies with which it disagrees, declaring such acts to be of no force or effect within the BACOP’s bounds.
A more extreme alternative would be for the BACOP to anathematize congregations or presbyteries that ordain SAPHAs, declaring those governing bodies no longer to be organizational expressions of the true Church.
Both nullification and anathematization would make it clear that the BACOP is not in any way in agreement with ordinations it understands to be immoral or unconstitutional. Both actions would thus solve the worst of the moral dilemmas caused by local option – that of appearing to approve of the proclamation of a false gospel.
There are, however, many problems with both of these tactics. Anathematization would practically be very difficult – for how would any BACOP know whether another presbytery has in fact ordained a SAPHA? No one wants to condemn someone else based purely on hearsay or gossip, and there would be no meaningful way to conduct hearings on the matter, since the ordination would by definition be outside the BACOP’s jurisdiction.
The main problem with nullification is that it would have little practical effect – after all, the BACOP would have no power actually to undo the actions it would be nullifying. This means that the ordination of SAPHAs would continue within the PCUSA, no matter what any BACOP might say or do. The BACOP would still be legally implicated in those actions, as long as G-9.0103 remains in the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.”
Moreover, given the ability of higher governing bodies to overturn the actions of the governing bodies immediately below them, no extra-constitutional actions are likely to stand. Statements of nullification or anathematization could be, and probably would be, quickly overturned. Such extra-constitutional statements might also encourage Synods to appoint administrative commissions to prevent such irregular actions in the future.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Sorting Ourselves Out - More Flexible Presbyteries
By this point, it should be obvious that it is not possible for Presbyterians who have different views on the ordination of Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) to remain in full ecclesiastical communion. And yet it cannot be denied that people who hold mutually exclusive positions on this question do remain within every presbytery of the PCUSA.
One solution to this problem has been presented to the 219th General Assembly by Beaver-Butler Presbytery. Overture 45 can be found here:
http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=2339
The main point of this overture is to allow congregations to sort themselves out into presbyteries in which they can “express shared, deeply held convictions.” The intention is admirable, and would be most helpful for a few congregations that find themselves at odds with the clear majority of their presbytery. According to this overture, such minority congregations could decide to join another, more theologically compatible presbytery, even if that presbytery were not geographically contiguous, as long as that other presbytery were “within one day’s reasonable travel.”
This is, of course, not as radical a change as it sounds. The PCUSA already has several non-geographic presbyteries, membership in which is defined along linguistic or cultural lines. Beaver-Butler’s idea would simply extend this idea to include theological affinity along with racial-ethnic affinity.
The idea also takes into account the relational revolution we are all experiencing with the advent of the internet. With conference calls and social-networking sites so inexpensive and available, it simply makes no sense to insist that geography be the exclusive determinant of political unity.
Unfortunately, however, the Beaver-Butler proposal cannot be seen as the final solution to the PCUSA’s problems, for it would leave G-9.0103 in the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.” As long as SAPHA-ordaining presbyteries remain within the PCUSA, even those presbyteries which self-consciously and publicly reject the ordination of SAPHAs would be implicated in their actions. Sorting congregations into more homogeneous presbyteries could thus only be seen as an intermediate step towards a more radical separation.
One solution to this problem has been presented to the 219th General Assembly by Beaver-Butler Presbytery. Overture 45 can be found here:
http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=2339
The main point of this overture is to allow congregations to sort themselves out into presbyteries in which they can “express shared, deeply held convictions.” The intention is admirable, and would be most helpful for a few congregations that find themselves at odds with the clear majority of their presbytery. According to this overture, such minority congregations could decide to join another, more theologically compatible presbytery, even if that presbytery were not geographically contiguous, as long as that other presbytery were “within one day’s reasonable travel.”
This is, of course, not as radical a change as it sounds. The PCUSA already has several non-geographic presbyteries, membership in which is defined along linguistic or cultural lines. Beaver-Butler’s idea would simply extend this idea to include theological affinity along with racial-ethnic affinity.
The idea also takes into account the relational revolution we are all experiencing with the advent of the internet. With conference calls and social-networking sites so inexpensive and available, it simply makes no sense to insist that geography be the exclusive determinant of political unity.
Unfortunately, however, the Beaver-Butler proposal cannot be seen as the final solution to the PCUSA’s problems, for it would leave G-9.0103 in the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.” As long as SAPHA-ordaining presbyteries remain within the PCUSA, even those presbyteries which self-consciously and publicly reject the ordination of SAPHAs would be implicated in their actions. Sorting congregations into more homogeneous presbyteries could thus only be seen as an intermediate step towards a more radical separation.
Friday, March 19, 2010
The New Synod Option
Some Biblically orthodox Presbyterians, including Presbyterians for Renewal, are advocating for some sort of New Synod model. The Presbytery of Santa Barbara has submitted such a proposal to the 219th General Assembly. You can find the Santa Barbara proposal here:
http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=2321
This idea would leave the congregations that favor the ordination of Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) within the current system of presbyteries and synods. Those presbyteries and congregations that object to the ordination of SAPHAs would be allowed to withdraw into a New Synod. All the synods and presbyteries would remain within the PCUSA, and thus continue to use the resources of the Board of Pensions.
This proposal has been advanced with the best of intentions, and its proponents are truly trying to find a way for Presbyterians to live together in the midst of our current constitutional chaos. If such a solution were to be adopted it would, nevertheless, be a pyrrhic victory for Biblically Orthodox Presbyterians.
In order for this proposal to provide relief of conscience for its members, the presbyteries of the New Synod would have to deny the validity of any ordinations that took place in the rest of the synods. This would not be possible, even if the Santa Barbara proposal were adopted, because G-9.0103 would remain within the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.” As long as the New Synod remains within the PCUSA, it would thus continue to state, by its actions if not by its words, that ordinations of SAPHAs, even if done by other congregations or presbyteries, would be done in the name of the New Synod.
At the very least, the presbyteries of the New Synod would have to accept ministers from presbyteries in the other synods only after examining them as if they were coming from a completely different denomination. The New Synod model would therefore require the de facto if not the de jure division of the PCUSA into two distinct churches.
In addition, the result envisioned by the New Synod proposal would practically be very difficult to achieve. Many Presbyterian congregations are not of one mind concerning the ordination of SAPHAs, so, in order to provide relief for their consciences, individual members would be required to shift their membership to congregations that held their opinions. While this might be possible in urban areas with many different Presbyterian congregations, many rural areas are only served by one congregation. What option would dissenting members of those congregations have? Into which presbytery and synod would they go?
Because the New Synod model would allow congregations to withdraw from existing presbyteries to join presbyteries within the bounds of the New Synod, this proposal could result in a greater number of smaller and weaker presbyteries, which would necessarily have more difficulty maintaining their programs and supporting their budgets. On the other hand, if presbyteries were to maintain a healthy number of members, they would have to be geographically larger, and thus more dispersed. They would thus provide less intimate fellowship and accountability for their congregations.
Finally, the New-Synod Model would doom Biblically Orthodox Presbyterians to political irrelevance. By concentrating orthodox congregations within a small number of presbyteries, the rest of the presbyteries would fall increasingly under the sway of those who favor the ordination of SAPHAs. Those presbyteries would increasingly outvote the presbyteries of the New Synod at future General Assemblies.
A similar scenario has worked itself out within the politics of the United States, as African Americans cooperated with Republicans to create congressional districts with large concentrations of blacks throughout the South. While this did create more opportunities for black candidates to be elected to congress, it also concentrated many potential Democratic voters into a few districts. Because of the concentration of their opponents, Republicans found it much easier to win election in other Southern districts, and the region which had once been solidly Democratic shifted rather quickly to Republican dominance. Black Democrats gained purer districts, but by doing so, they ensured the victory of their opponents.
Retreating into the ghetto has never been a good political tactic.
http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=2321
This idea would leave the congregations that favor the ordination of Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) within the current system of presbyteries and synods. Those presbyteries and congregations that object to the ordination of SAPHAs would be allowed to withdraw into a New Synod. All the synods and presbyteries would remain within the PCUSA, and thus continue to use the resources of the Board of Pensions.
This proposal has been advanced with the best of intentions, and its proponents are truly trying to find a way for Presbyterians to live together in the midst of our current constitutional chaos. If such a solution were to be adopted it would, nevertheless, be a pyrrhic victory for Biblically Orthodox Presbyterians.
In order for this proposal to provide relief of conscience for its members, the presbyteries of the New Synod would have to deny the validity of any ordinations that took place in the rest of the synods. This would not be possible, even if the Santa Barbara proposal were adopted, because G-9.0103 would remain within the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.” As long as the New Synod remains within the PCUSA, it would thus continue to state, by its actions if not by its words, that ordinations of SAPHAs, even if done by other congregations or presbyteries, would be done in the name of the New Synod.
At the very least, the presbyteries of the New Synod would have to accept ministers from presbyteries in the other synods only after examining them as if they were coming from a completely different denomination. The New Synod model would therefore require the de facto if not the de jure division of the PCUSA into two distinct churches.
In addition, the result envisioned by the New Synod proposal would practically be very difficult to achieve. Many Presbyterian congregations are not of one mind concerning the ordination of SAPHAs, so, in order to provide relief for their consciences, individual members would be required to shift their membership to congregations that held their opinions. While this might be possible in urban areas with many different Presbyterian congregations, many rural areas are only served by one congregation. What option would dissenting members of those congregations have? Into which presbytery and synod would they go?
Because the New Synod model would allow congregations to withdraw from existing presbyteries to join presbyteries within the bounds of the New Synod, this proposal could result in a greater number of smaller and weaker presbyteries, which would necessarily have more difficulty maintaining their programs and supporting their budgets. On the other hand, if presbyteries were to maintain a healthy number of members, they would have to be geographically larger, and thus more dispersed. They would thus provide less intimate fellowship and accountability for their congregations.
Finally, the New-Synod Model would doom Biblically Orthodox Presbyterians to political irrelevance. By concentrating orthodox congregations within a small number of presbyteries, the rest of the presbyteries would fall increasingly under the sway of those who favor the ordination of SAPHAs. Those presbyteries would increasingly outvote the presbyteries of the New Synod at future General Assemblies.
A similar scenario has worked itself out within the politics of the United States, as African Americans cooperated with Republicans to create congressional districts with large concentrations of blacks throughout the South. While this did create more opportunities for black candidates to be elected to congress, it also concentrated many potential Democratic voters into a few districts. Because of the concentration of their opponents, Republicans found it much easier to win election in other Southern districts, and the region which had once been solidly Democratic shifted rather quickly to Republican dominance. Black Democrats gained purer districts, but by doing so, they ensured the victory of their opponents.
Retreating into the ghetto has never been a good political tactic.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Given Local Option, What Can the Faithful Do?
So, what can a Biblically and Confessionally Orthodox Presbytery (BACOP) do if the PCUSA allows local option, which means that other presbyteries within the PCUSA begin legally to ordain Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs)? Some possible responses would only serve to strengthen the concept of local option.
For example, a BACOP could state that it will no longer be in full fellowship with SAPHA- Ordaining Presbyteries (SOPs). This would in effect mean that a candidate or minister from a SOP would be examined more strictly, perhaps as if he or she were transferring from another denomination. But this is exactly what local option allows. Local option already recognizes the right of every presbytery to examine its members in whatever way it sees fit. To affirm this principle of local option while remaining in fellowship with unorthodox presbyteries would continue to tar the BACOP with the brush of their heresy.
Other potential responses would not currently be allowed by the constitution. In the main, Bush v. Pittsburgh was good news for orthodox Presbyterians, as we have seen. Bush says that every constitutional standard has to be followed, and thus that no presbytery or session can allow candidates to be exempt from any behavioral requirement in the Book of Order. But because of this, Bush also says that presbyteries and sessions can’t say ahead of time that they will in fact enforce certain parts of the constitution: “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.” This is because, according to Bush, such restatements imply that specific standards can, in fact, be neglected or ignored. And so, Bush requires the standards of the church to be applied to candidates only on a case-by-case basis. The bottom line is this: Bush prevents orthodox presbyteries from stating ahead of time that they will not allow any exceptions to G-6.0106b. It is thus no longer possible for any BACOP to build a firewall around itself, saying that it will not allow SAPHAs to be ordained within its bounds.
For example, a BACOP could state that it will no longer be in full fellowship with SAPHA- Ordaining Presbyteries (SOPs). This would in effect mean that a candidate or minister from a SOP would be examined more strictly, perhaps as if he or she were transferring from another denomination. But this is exactly what local option allows. Local option already recognizes the right of every presbytery to examine its members in whatever way it sees fit. To affirm this principle of local option while remaining in fellowship with unorthodox presbyteries would continue to tar the BACOP with the brush of their heresy.
Other potential responses would not currently be allowed by the constitution. In the main, Bush v. Pittsburgh was good news for orthodox Presbyterians, as we have seen. Bush says that every constitutional standard has to be followed, and thus that no presbytery or session can allow candidates to be exempt from any behavioral requirement in the Book of Order. But because of this, Bush also says that presbyteries and sessions can’t say ahead of time that they will in fact enforce certain parts of the constitution: “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.” This is because, according to Bush, such restatements imply that specific standards can, in fact, be neglected or ignored. And so, Bush requires the standards of the church to be applied to candidates only on a case-by-case basis. The bottom line is this: Bush prevents orthodox presbyteries from stating ahead of time that they will not allow any exceptions to G-6.0106b. It is thus no longer possible for any BACOP to build a firewall around itself, saying that it will not allow SAPHAs to be ordained within its bounds.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Local Option is Suicidal for the Church
The question of ordaining Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) is one of the few historical instances in which theological purity, ecumenical outreach, and practical self-interest happen to coincide. For the fact is that, according to the teachings of the Bible from cover to cover, it has never been God’s will that people should give themselves over to whatever sexual urges they have. From Moses to Jesus, legitimate sexual activity has always been exclusively confined within the bonds of marriage. And from the days of Adam and Eve, marriage has always been defined as between one man and one woman for one lifetime. This standard has been upheld first by the Jews and then by the Christian Church as long as history has been written.
Moreover, it is a standard that is embraced by the vast majority of Christians all over the world today. Those who call themselves Christians but who abandon such a divine, universal standard thus cut themselves off from the witness of the Church throughout both space and time. Practically speaking, governing bodies that ordain SAPHAs risk losing whatever ties they have to international partners.
Finally, sessions that choose to ordain SAPHAs would be placing severe limits on the potential growth of their congregations. Parents with young children would be unlikely to expose them to people who endorse perversion. Meanwhile, biological fact would dictate that people who engage in homosexual activity are much less likely to have any children of their own. By cutting itself off from a principal method of congregational growth, a session that ordains SAPHAs would be giving itself a death sentence.
In sum, a church that embraces sexual perversion as a moral good must and should wither away, cut off as it is from God’s truth, from the Apostolic Church, and from healthy human society.
Moreover, it is a standard that is embraced by the vast majority of Christians all over the world today. Those who call themselves Christians but who abandon such a divine, universal standard thus cut themselves off from the witness of the Church throughout both space and time. Practically speaking, governing bodies that ordain SAPHAs risk losing whatever ties they have to international partners.
Finally, sessions that choose to ordain SAPHAs would be placing severe limits on the potential growth of their congregations. Parents with young children would be unlikely to expose them to people who endorse perversion. Meanwhile, biological fact would dictate that people who engage in homosexual activity are much less likely to have any children of their own. By cutting itself off from a principal method of congregational growth, a session that ordains SAPHAs would be giving itself a death sentence.
In sum, a church that embraces sexual perversion as a moral good must and should wither away, cut off as it is from God’s truth, from the Apostolic Church, and from healthy human society.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Local Option Brings Scandal on the Church
So, what should be done if local option does come to pass, and Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) are legally allowed to be ordained in the PCUSA? Given the political, theological, and ecclesiastical problems inherent in local option, it is simply impossible for any Biblically orthodox Presbyterian, any congregation or any presbytery to tolerate it. For a Biblically and Confessionally Orthodox Presbytery (BACOP) to remain in full fellowship with SAPHA-ordaining presbyteries (SOPs) would be for the BACOP to be in league with a false church, and thus to compromise the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Why is that? First for political reasons. G-9.0103 makes clear the political problem: “All governing bodies of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.” In short, for a BACOP to remain in fellowship with a SOP would be for the BACOP to state that it approves of the things the SOP does. Unless the BACOP can somehow strongly and publically distance itself from the actions of the SOP, people both within and without the church will believe that it agrees with the SOP, and thus that the BACOP is also proclaiming the false gospel that the SOP preaches.
We must not deceive ourselves: denominational labels speak, and sometimes very loudly. For better or worse, the many different Presbyterian denominations are known for what makes them different, not for what they hold in common. The PCA and the OPC are known as the denominations that don’t ordain women. The EPC is known as the denomination that allows sessions and presbyteries to decide for themselves whether to ordain women. With the adoption of local option, the PCUSA will become known as the denomination that ordains SAPHAs. And without somehow distancing itself from the rest of the denomination, every BACOP will be implicated in that scandal.
Why is that? First for political reasons. G-9.0103 makes clear the political problem: “All governing bodies of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.” In short, for a BACOP to remain in fellowship with a SOP would be for the BACOP to state that it approves of the things the SOP does. Unless the BACOP can somehow strongly and publically distance itself from the actions of the SOP, people both within and without the church will believe that it agrees with the SOP, and thus that the BACOP is also proclaiming the false gospel that the SOP preaches.
We must not deceive ourselves: denominational labels speak, and sometimes very loudly. For better or worse, the many different Presbyterian denominations are known for what makes them different, not for what they hold in common. The PCA and the OPC are known as the denominations that don’t ordain women. The EPC is known as the denomination that allows sessions and presbyteries to decide for themselves whether to ordain women. With the adoption of local option, the PCUSA will become known as the denomination that ordains SAPHAs. And without somehow distancing itself from the rest of the denomination, every BACOP will be implicated in that scandal.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Local Option means the PCUSA no longer proclaims the true Gospel
When a Self-Acknowledged Practitioner of Homosexual Acts (SAPHA) seeks ordination, he or she is not just unqualified. He or she is by definition stating that homosexual acts are not sinful. Another way of saying this is that he or she is proclaiming wickedness to be righteous. Isaiah took a very dim view of such statements: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20-21)
But the SAPHA’s proclamation of a false gospel doesn’t end with his or her ordination. Each SAPHA by actions if not by words continues to proclaim that perversion is not perverse, and that sin is not sin. At the very least, by claiming to be unable to control his or her sexual behavior, the SAPHA casts doubt on all Biblical regulations concerning such behavior, including the most fundamental of all: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Since impressionable young people are most likely to believe such spoken and unspoken messages, and thereby to be led into sexual sin themselves, ordained SAPHAs should pay special attention to these words of Jesus: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)
But Jesus’ warning isn’t just for the SAPHAs who are ordained – it extends to every governing body that ordains a SAPHA. This is because the act of ordination is also a form of communication. By laying hands on someone, the ordaining body is saying, “We approve of this person and his or her ministry. This person speaks for us.” And so, by ordaining a SAPHA, a session or presbytery is agreeing with him or her that it is not necessary for the SAPHA to repent of sin. The ordaining body is thus agreeing that sin is not sin.
Moreover, given that homosexual acts are in fact sinful, and given that the ordaining body is not in fact requiring the SAPHA to repent of them, the ordaining body is by its action stating that repentance is not required for sin. And if the ordaining body fails to require the SAPHA to repent because the ordaining body believes that “homosexuality” is an innate human characteristic, the ordaining body is also denying the real possibility of sanctification, of the power of the Holy Spirit to transform lives, bringing real change and growth in holiness.
Any governing body that ordains SAPHAs or approves of their ordination thus proclaims wickedness to be righteous. It denies the need for repentance. It denies the possibility of sanctification and belittles the Holy Spirit. Such an ordaining body therefore must cease to be part of the true church because it can no longer be said to demonstrate one of the essential marks of the church – the true preaching of the Word of God. In short, ordaining SAPHAs doesn’t just change the qualifications of those who are allowed to preach the gospel – it changes the content of the gospel itself.
But the SAPHA’s proclamation of a false gospel doesn’t end with his or her ordination. Each SAPHA by actions if not by words continues to proclaim that perversion is not perverse, and that sin is not sin. At the very least, by claiming to be unable to control his or her sexual behavior, the SAPHA casts doubt on all Biblical regulations concerning such behavior, including the most fundamental of all: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Since impressionable young people are most likely to believe such spoken and unspoken messages, and thereby to be led into sexual sin themselves, ordained SAPHAs should pay special attention to these words of Jesus: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)
But Jesus’ warning isn’t just for the SAPHAs who are ordained – it extends to every governing body that ordains a SAPHA. This is because the act of ordination is also a form of communication. By laying hands on someone, the ordaining body is saying, “We approve of this person and his or her ministry. This person speaks for us.” And so, by ordaining a SAPHA, a session or presbytery is agreeing with him or her that it is not necessary for the SAPHA to repent of sin. The ordaining body is thus agreeing that sin is not sin.
Moreover, given that homosexual acts are in fact sinful, and given that the ordaining body is not in fact requiring the SAPHA to repent of them, the ordaining body is by its action stating that repentance is not required for sin. And if the ordaining body fails to require the SAPHA to repent because the ordaining body believes that “homosexuality” is an innate human characteristic, the ordaining body is also denying the real possibility of sanctification, of the power of the Holy Spirit to transform lives, bringing real change and growth in holiness.
Any governing body that ordains SAPHAs or approves of their ordination thus proclaims wickedness to be righteous. It denies the need for repentance. It denies the possibility of sanctification and belittles the Holy Spirit. Such an ordaining body therefore must cease to be part of the true church because it can no longer be said to demonstrate one of the essential marks of the church – the true preaching of the Word of God. In short, ordaining SAPHAs doesn’t just change the qualifications of those who are allowed to preach the gospel – it changes the content of the gospel itself.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Local Option means the PCUSA no longer proclaims one Gospel
The political problems raised by local option pale in comparison to the theological chaos it will unleash. For the simple truth is that the ordination of Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) can’t be compromised. Some Presbyterians see it as an essential expression of the justice of Jesus Christ. Others see it as moral perversion. These positions are, quite simply, mutually exclusive.
In addition, both positions cannot at the same time be consistent with the gospel. If homosexual behavior is moral perversion, then preventing people who engage in that behavior from being ordained would not be an abrogation of Christian justice. Instead barring SAPHAs from office would be a correct application of Christian justice through the proper exercise of ecclesiastical discipline. Conversely, if homosexual behavior is not sinful, then those who see it as moral perversion are guilty of the worst sort of hatred and condemnation that can be expressed against Christian brothers and sisters. If homosexual behavior is not sinful, those who oppose it should themselves be subject to ecclesiastical discipline.
Thus, allowing each presbytery and session to decide for itself whether or not homosexual behavior is sinful will not bring peace and unity to the church. Instead local option guarantees that different governing bodies will preach different gospels, declaring that diametrically opposite actions are sinful. And since both of these opinions cannot be right, that means that a significant part of the church will in fact be proclaiming a false gospel. No Christian can, in good conscience, tolerate such a situation for long.
In addition, both positions cannot at the same time be consistent with the gospel. If homosexual behavior is moral perversion, then preventing people who engage in that behavior from being ordained would not be an abrogation of Christian justice. Instead barring SAPHAs from office would be a correct application of Christian justice through the proper exercise of ecclesiastical discipline. Conversely, if homosexual behavior is not sinful, then those who see it as moral perversion are guilty of the worst sort of hatred and condemnation that can be expressed against Christian brothers and sisters. If homosexual behavior is not sinful, those who oppose it should themselves be subject to ecclesiastical discipline.
Thus, allowing each presbytery and session to decide for itself whether or not homosexual behavior is sinful will not bring peace and unity to the church. Instead local option guarantees that different governing bodies will preach different gospels, declaring that diametrically opposite actions are sinful. And since both of these opinions cannot be right, that means that a significant part of the church will in fact be proclaiming a false gospel. No Christian can, in good conscience, tolerate such a situation for long.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Local Option sunders PCUSA polity
What will happen if those who support local option succeed in one of their three attacks on the polity of the PCUSA? What will local option mean for Presbyterians?
In the first place, under local option, the church would no longer be measuring the fitness of prospective ordinands in a uniform way. Instead, different presbyteries and sessions would in effect place different sets of requirements on their ordinands. Some presbyteries might require candidates to state that they not only approve of the ordination of Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs), but that they will participate in their ordination. Other presbyteries might require candidates to state their belief that SAPHAs are not eligible for ordination.
All this means that the most essential expression of unity between presbyteries and sessions – the ability to transfer ministers and elders between governing bodies, trusting that other governing bodies have properly trained and examined them – would no longer be possible in any meaningful way. It would be practically necessary to examine all candidates coming from other presbyteries just as if they were coming from other denominations, because there would be no way to know if they shared a common view of sin, or even a common commitment to govern their behavior according to the Book of Order.
More seriously, local option would necessarily allow presbyteries and sessions to let candidates choose not to abide by all the behavioral requirements of the Book of Order. At the same time, those same candidates would still be required to vow that they will be “governed by the church’s polity and abide by its discipline.” Promising to be governed by a polity that you are at the same time stating you will not obey is not properly called inconsistency – it is called a lie. And such lies will destroy the bonds of trust that exist between sessions and presbyteries that will now have to wonder if other governing bodies allow their candidates to lie in order to be ordained.
But even those candidates who make their vows honestly, truly intending to be governed by the spirit and letter of the constitution, would be unable to do so under local option. For if every session or presbytery can allow candidates to disobey whatever parts of the constitution they choose, then the constitution – the polity of the church – can no longer serve as a meaningful limitation on those candidates’ behavior. Instead, candidates would in reality be governed only by the arbitrary dictates and whims of their sessions or their presbyteries. Thus even if honest candidates genuinely state their desire to be governed by the polity of the church, they will in fact only be governed by force and fiat. In a very real sense, the constitution itself will cease to exist.
For all these reasons, it is not too much to say that local option will dissolve all the political bands that currently unite the sessions and presbyteries of the PCUSA.
In the first place, under local option, the church would no longer be measuring the fitness of prospective ordinands in a uniform way. Instead, different presbyteries and sessions would in effect place different sets of requirements on their ordinands. Some presbyteries might require candidates to state that they not only approve of the ordination of Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs), but that they will participate in their ordination. Other presbyteries might require candidates to state their belief that SAPHAs are not eligible for ordination.
All this means that the most essential expression of unity between presbyteries and sessions – the ability to transfer ministers and elders between governing bodies, trusting that other governing bodies have properly trained and examined them – would no longer be possible in any meaningful way. It would be practically necessary to examine all candidates coming from other presbyteries just as if they were coming from other denominations, because there would be no way to know if they shared a common view of sin, or even a common commitment to govern their behavior according to the Book of Order.
More seriously, local option would necessarily allow presbyteries and sessions to let candidates choose not to abide by all the behavioral requirements of the Book of Order. At the same time, those same candidates would still be required to vow that they will be “governed by the church’s polity and abide by its discipline.” Promising to be governed by a polity that you are at the same time stating you will not obey is not properly called inconsistency – it is called a lie. And such lies will destroy the bonds of trust that exist between sessions and presbyteries that will now have to wonder if other governing bodies allow their candidates to lie in order to be ordained.
But even those candidates who make their vows honestly, truly intending to be governed by the spirit and letter of the constitution, would be unable to do so under local option. For if every session or presbytery can allow candidates to disobey whatever parts of the constitution they choose, then the constitution – the polity of the church – can no longer serve as a meaningful limitation on those candidates’ behavior. Instead, candidates would in reality be governed only by the arbitrary dictates and whims of their sessions or their presbyteries. Thus even if honest candidates genuinely state their desire to be governed by the polity of the church, they will in fact only be governed by force and fiat. In a very real sense, the constitution itself will cease to exist.
For all these reasons, it is not too much to say that local option will dissolve all the political bands that currently unite the sessions and presbyteries of the PCUSA.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Local Option and the PCUSA (part 1)
So, what's going on with ordination standards in the PCUSA? What is likely to happen at the General Assembly this summer? We cannot doubt that there is a great movement among some in the denomination to provide local option where it comes to ordination standards. Now, to be fair, we have had de facto local option for quite some time. The fact is that self-acknowledged practitioners of homosexual acts (SAPHAs) have already been ordained as ministers and elders within several presbyteries of the PCUSA. But these ordinations have happened in defiance of the clear language found in G-6.0106b of the Book of Order. If the ordination of SAPHAs has been allowed within rogue presbyteries, it is because of a lack of desire to prevent such behavior, not because the constitution of the denomination permits it.
But now those who do not wish to be governed by the polity of the church are attempting to change the constitution so they have no obligation to do so. Put simply, they want sessions and presbyteries to have the constitutional option to ordain SAPHAs. They are thus attacking the constitution in three ways.
Three lines of attack
The first way is the most direct. Ever since the language of G-6.0106b first found its way into the Book of Order, powerful forces have been trying to remove it. This can only be done by the General Assembly proposing an amendment to the constitution, which must then be approved by a majority of the presbyteries. The last such amendment was defeated by only a few votes, and so the Supporters of Local Option (SLOs) are determined to try that again this year. It doesn’t really matter how they word their proposal or what arguments they use to justify it – at the end of the day, the SLOs simply want to allow SAPHAs to be ordained.
The second tactic of the SLOs has been to try to interpret G-6.0106b out of existence. This was the motivating force behind the passage of the PUP report in 2006, and the John Knox overture in 2008. Put simply, both of these interpretations of the constitution state that a person's freedom of conscience allows him or her to opt out of any behavioral requirements prescribed by the Book of Order. These interpretations allow any candidate to declare a "scruple," stating not only that he or she disagrees with the Book of Order or the Book of Confessions on some point of theology or polity, but that he or she will not be bound by part of the church's polity. Such "scrupling" is of course a recipe for constitutional chaos, which is, of course, the intention of the SLOs.
The only remaining impediment to the SLOs being able to interpret G-6.0106b out of existence has been the opposition of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly (GAPJC). In several cases, the GAPJC has upheld the necessity for all candidates and presbyteries to abide by all the requirements found in the constitution. Bush v. Pittsburgh was especially helpful in this regard, clarifying the PUP report adopted by the 217th General Assembly. Bush made it clear that all ordinands had to abide by all requirements of the constitution, and that presbyteries could not allow candidates to state that they would not live according to behavioral standards such as those found in G-6.0106b. The GAPJC stated, “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.”
Lately, however, the GAPJC has demonstrated less resolve on this issue. In cases taking place in 2009 which involved the ordinations of SAPHAs Lisa Larges and Paul Capetz, the GAPJC ruled very narrowly, explicitly refusing to say whether it is possible for a candidate to declare ahead of time his or her intention to disobey part of the constitution. More cases concerning the ordination of SAPHAs are currently in the pipeline, including John Knox Presbytery’s recent ordination of Scott Anderson. But if the GAPJC eventually overrules the concept of "scrupling" points of polity, it has already shown that it will do so only with the greatest reluctance.
There is a third method by which the SLOs seek to allow the ordination of SAPHAs: the introduction of an entirely new Form of Government, or nFOG. While this proposed document would leave the language of G-6.0106b in place, it would remove many of the mechanisms that can currently be used to enforce compliance with it. In addition, the nFOG would impose a more sweeping definition of inclusivity on the PCUSA, allowing governing bodies to decide for themselves which groups or categories of people are entitled to constitutional protection. In short, the nFOG would allow presbyteries to require SAPHAs to be eligible to serve in the offices of the church. The conflict between this requirement and G-6.0106b would then be thrown into the permanent judicial commissions or referred to the General Assembly itself for clarification, and who can predict what would happen then?
Thanks to Bob Davis for beginning a very helpful discussion on the constitutional crisis in the PCUSA (you can see his articles on presbyblog at http://www.presbyblog.com/current/219ga/022210constitutionalcrisis.html
and
http://www.presbyblog.com/current/219ga/022310whattodo.html)
Carmen Fowler has also commented wisely on this subject at
http://www.layman.org/carmensblog/10-02-25/_Presbyterianism_run_amuck.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)