We have communicated our concerns quietly with our fellow renewal organizations and with commissioners who have sought our counsel. However, now that the call to reconvene the Assembly has been made public, we believe it necessary to enter the discussion publicly, as well.
We share the exasperation of those who wish our denomination could put matters of sexual morality and ordination behind us through faithfully maintaining our historic standards. Nevertheless, we believe that renewal and reform are ongoing processes, the ultimate accomplishment of which depends more upon our faithfulness, perseverance, and patient waiting on God accomplishing through his timing what we cannot do as well, rather than upon our perhaps untimely actions that could become counterproductive.
Why do we counsel commissioners against calling a special General Assembly?
First, we believe that calling a special Assembly is largely out of proportion to the problem. Yes, a few churches and individuals are publicly defying the Constitution and inviting confrontation. But out of roughly two million members and eleven thousand sessions, only a tiny number are posturing in defiance. Talk of pervasive, mushrooming, unchecked defiance indicating a constitutional crisis seems to us to be exaggerated—at this point.
Second, we think such a called Assembly is premature. Several judicial cases are still working their way through the system. Yes, some governing bodies have seemingly bungled or distorted various proceedings. But that does not a constitutional crisis make! Despite our dismay over such apparent miscarriages of justice, we need patience. We have yet to see if the system will work as intended. Not only might a called Assembly find it problematic, if not improper, to address these cases while they remain in process, the very call of an Assembly could actually jeopardize their satisfactory disposition.
Third, if we want to convince our denomination to hold to the Constitution, why would we choose to reconvene the same Assembly commissioners who already voted by a 70% majority to let the judicial processes run their course? Would reconvening them at a time they did not choose and at a huge expense prepare them to make a different decision? The commissioners calling the meeting could logically expect a margin of defeat far larger than 70%. The effect of such a drastic and unprecedented action could well serve to erode further our denomination’s resolve to carry out its disciplinary processes in proper fashion.
Does this counsel against a called Assembly mean that Presbyterians for Renewal does not believe the disciplinary problem is serious? Not at all. The perversion or failure of church discipline at any level is definitely a critical concern. However, we first want to see if the ordinary procedures prescribed by the Constitution for the resolution of such defiance will succeed.
If the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission recognizes the obvious problems and upholds the plain sense of G-6.0106b, that will be the most appropriate and effective solution. However, if the GAPJC should ultimately vacate the effect of G-6.0106b through its rulings in these cases, then we would indeed find ourselves in a true constitutional crisis, one that could well warrant the reconvening of an Assembly. Such a crisis might necessitate the Assembly taking even such drastic actions as voting to dismiss that GAPJC, vacating the constitutional implications of their earlier rulings on these cases, and electing a new GAPJC that will rightly defend the Constitution. But unless a Constitution-breaking decision is handed down by the GAPJC, we do not believe such extraordinary measures to be necessary.
Presbyterians for Renewal intends to pray for and monitor the judicial processes, while it presses forward in its ministries that promote the renewal of the Church. We welcome all to join us in such endeavors.
— James D. Berkley, Issues Ministry Director, [email protected]
