Constitutional Crisis or Connectional Conundrum?

The presenting issue is the fact that a handful of ministers and several church sessions have announced that they intend to disregard the constitutional requirement of “fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” (G-6.0106b) for those who would be ordained or installed as deacons, elders or ministers of the Word and Sacrament. What about that?

Defiance, the Vows and the Law

Declarations of defiance clearly violate the spirit and intentions of our ordination vows. If ours were a congregational church system where “the autonomous local church” can set and self-regulate its own policies, such an action would be normal and acceptable. But we are governed by constitutional law, and when that law is duly amended, as in the case of G-6.0106b, we all by virtue of our vows are duty bound to practice such a policy. We may work to change it, but we are not free to rebel against it.

On the other hand, on purely legalistic terms, declarations of defiance do not actually break church law. In point of fact, church law is broken only when a person actually takes the intended action. To illustrate, if a thief announces the intention to rob the First National Bank, no court in the land would indict the perpetrator unless the First National Bank were robbed. The threat does not constitute the act.

So one can be legally innocent while publicly declaring the intent to be guilty. That constitutes a connectional conundrum.

The conundrum deepens.

Discipline and Oversight

It is appropriate to expect the presbytery leaders (presbytery executive[s], stated clerk and committee on ministry) immediately to exhort and require defiance-declaring ministers or elders to reverse their position. That is happening in many places. To be sure, those insisting that the Constitution is not being enforced merely need to call any of those leaders in their own presbytery to hear of the discipline cases pending or recently completed to know that discipline is being exercised — especially in offenses involving sexual immorality.

However, in some places presbytery leaders are failing to steer their member ministers and sessions in a constitutional direction. A few presbytery leaders have expressed allegiance to those defying the Constitution, thereby compounding the defiance. They are promoting creeping congregationalism even while serving as connectional church officers.

That constitutes a connectional conundrum.

The conundrum deepens.

Working the Courts

Concerned constitutional, connectional Presbyterians have been taking action to redress these wrongs. On the one hand, they have exercised their constitutional obligation — indeed, they have exercised one of the Reformed marks of the church — by seeking to exercise discipline. Some have filed cases against those who have declared their defiance. Others have filed against non-enforcing presbyteries. Some have urged the General Assem-bly’s stated clerk to take action. Others have urged the General Assembly itself to intervene.

Yet some of those efforts have failed. Cases have been filed against defendants who had only threatened to defy. Cases have been filed where the only witness against the defendant is the defendant him/herself; which court in our land is inclined to require defendants to testify against themselves? The stated clerk has refused to play the role of a monarch, being unwilling to extend his authority into governing bodies beyond the range of his jurisdiction. And the 214th General Assembly was not seated as a court, and was none too interested in becoming one.

Regaining Perspective

So we are faced with a conundrum. Is this a constitutional crisis? Probably not. Yes, some folks are testing the bounds of our common covenant. But that has been the case ever since the days of Abraham and Sarah. Presbyterians of every theological stripe have tested our constitutional boundaries throughout the 20th century whenever denominational policy took an unpleasant turn. Yes, some folks believe they owe it to themselves and the church to carve a path in directions contrary to the norm. But we are Protestants after all; we have canonized a few such provocateurs.

Such a conundrum begs for positive response. Where do we begin? We can start with rebuilding the con-nectionalism. Some of us have deceived ourselves into thinking that such connectionalism operates solely through church courts. Not so! The power of Presbyterian connectionalism is the covenantal relationship we all entered in our baptism. A spirit of intentional, authentic accountability animates such a connection between us. Indeed, part of its wonder is the reality that by becoming a Presbyterian one enters into mutual accountability with people many of whom we never would have chosen as friends. But the choosing is on God’s side. Fact is, we have been made sisters and brothers by God’s doing, so we are obligated to act as family—the healthy kind of family that speaks the truth in love, while living in close proximity to one another.

We can live out that covenantal connectionalism by exercising loving discipline as the Scriptures teach. We do need to “convince, rebuke and encourage” (2 Timothy 4:2) those who defy the church’s teachings. But we must do so with one another, not in opposition to one another. Doesn’t common sense and common experience bear out this principle? Whenever one of us is confronted in private by someone who has mustered the courage to confront us, are we not more receptive if we consider the confronter a friend than if we think that person is a predator?

It is unhelpful and inevitably self-defeating to file judicial complaints like tracts being dropped from the gospel blimp. Taking judicial action against strangers defies the model set by our Savior (Matthew 18) whose teaching provides the basis on which is built our Book of Discipline.

We can be thankful that most of us are abiding by G-6.0106b — including the large minority that have opposed it. And in many places those who believe it to be a wrongheaded policy are finding friends who are exhorting and encouraging them to live within its bounds. A few exceptions remain, but as few and far between as they are, they hardly justify the label, “constitutional crisis.” Then again, by sounding that alarm, we may create such a crisis, especially if we expect the letter of the law to complete what Christ, by the Holy Spirit, began with grace.