Does our church have a shared sense of Christian faithfulness? Or has the celebration of personal freedom rendered us incapable of agreeing on what a “manner of life [that is] a demonstration of the Christian gospel” looks like?
Predictably, response to the report of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church has focused on the effect its recommendations might have on the contested issue of the ordination and installation of “self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons.” Many conservatives in the church distrust recommendation 5, seeing in it a back door opening to “local option.” Many liberals in the church are distressed by recommendation 6, seeing it as a failure of nerve that maintains an unjust prohibition.
The Task Force’s mandate was far broader than the ordination controversy, of course. It was asked to lead the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A .) “in spiritual discernment of our Christian identity,” and to address specific issues of disagreement and conflict: biblical authority and interpretation, Christology, ordination standards, and power. Over a period of four years, Task Force members have worked faithfully and well on the full range of matters before them, but it was inevitable that the issue of ordination standards would push the church’s consideration of the others into the far background. Christological controversy receded in the wake of the General Assembly’s overwhelming affirmation of “Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Scriptural authority and interpretation remains an issue in the church, and is unresolved by Task Force members’ general agreement that Scripture is authoritative for them.
Yet the Task Force report, “A Season of Discernment,” attempts to do far more than recommend a way for the church to deal with its ordination controversy. One way to discern the “more” that it attempts is to conduct a thought experiment: How would the Task Force recommendations be understood if the ordination of gay and lesbian persons were not at issue? Is it possible to bracket the matter, examining the Task Force’s first five recommendations apart from the controverted issue of ordaining “self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons?” Such a thought experiment might lead to an understanding of the Task Force’s full intentions that could both illuminate and modify the bracketed matter.
Task Force recommendations only come after 32 pages of theological and ecclesial reflection. This work is more than mere prologue; consideration of the recommendations is broader and deeper when informed by all that has gone before. However, this thought experiment will go from back to front, beginning with recommendation 5 and moving back through the other recommendations to the substance of the report, before finally picking up recommendation 6.
Recommendation 5 is a proposed “authoritative interpretation” of G-6.0108 (not G-6.0106b!). It notes that The Book of Confessions and the Book of Order set forth scriptural standards for ordination and installation, and that presbyteries and sessions are responsible for applying these standards. When examining persons for ordination and/or installation, presbyteries and sessions should determine whether a person has departed from scriptural and constitutional standards, and whether a departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the “essentials of Reformed faith and polity,” thus barring a candidate from ordination and/or installation.
Shouldn’t this go without saying? On the surface, the proposed authoritative interpretation does little more than state the obvious. Yet the clear implication is that many (most?) ordaining and installing bodies fail to exercise their responsibility in any but the most mechanical sense. Ministers and elders would be embarrassed by the quality of examinations in presbyteries — both in committee and on the floor — if they took seriously the Book of Order claim that “It is necessary to the integrity and health of the church that the persons who serve in it as officers shall adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity” (G-6.0108.) There are times when presbyters are discomfited, but the church’s integrity and health are regularly subordinated to canons of politeness and resignation to inevitability.
Presbyteries are to approve ordination of candidates for ministry of the Word and sacrament only if fully satisfied of their qualifications. Integral to this satisfaction is “examination of his or her Christian faith and views in theology, the Bible, the Sacraments, and the government of this church” (G-14.0402a.) Yet presbytery examinations are too often cursory at best, and nonexistent at worst. Before sessions approve ordination of elders and deacons they are to instruct and examine persons who have been elected by the congregation, and to inquire into their faithfulness in fulfilling their responsibilities (G-10.0102l.) Yet, more often than not, training in procedures is substituted for instruction in faith and ministry, and examination is reduced to a pleasant charade.
Why is presbytery responsibility to determine their membership by applying scriptural and constitutional standards so often elided? Presbyteries rely on their committees on preparation and ministry, while committees rely on standard ordination exams, seminary degrees, psychological testing. Everyone defers to home churches and calling congregations. If a person “feels” called to ministry, follows Book of Order policy and presbytery procedures, earns a seminary degree and passes standard tests, approval for ordination is all but guaranteed.
Why is session responsibility to apply scriptural and constitutional standards so often overlooked? Sessions do not want to confront fellow members (or themselves) with potentially embarrassing inquiry into faith and faithfulness. The meaning of ordination vows is less significant than organizational skills or congregational standing.
There are many reasons for the failure of presbyteries and sessions to exercise “due diligence” in its examinations, but one of them is the widespread confusion about ordination and office. What are we ordaining people to? Ministry of the Word and Sacrament, once understood primarily as a pastoral office, now encompasses ninety “authorized ecclesiastical occupational designations,” one of which is “other validated ministry.” The office of elder, once understood as bearing responsibility for spiritual discernment in congregations, has become rotating membership on the church’s management board. The office of deacon is rapidly disappearing as many congregations dispense with it altogether. What do the essentials of Reformed faith and polity have to do with “ordination” as the program director of a non-profit community agency or as a financial expert on the congregation’s board?
The Task Force is not naïve about the realities in presbyteries and sessions. That is why its report calls the church to reclaim the privilege and responsibility of honoring ordered ministries by ensuring “the integrity and health of the church” — the church’s theological and ecclesial integrity. The Task Force is expressing confidence in the church’s capacity to recover its historic role of ensuring that persons who are to be ordained and installed “adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government.”
Is the Task Force’s confidence misplaced? Granting the importance of its call to live out G-6.0108, the recommendation requires a Christian community that has the internal resources to make discerning judgments. The PC(USA) may lack sufficient theological and ecclesial cohesion to make the discerning judgments the Task Force calls for. What are the “essentials” of Reformed faith and polity? Does the PC(USA) have a shared sense of Christian faith? Or is our common life so fragmented that we are incapable of determining what is central to Christian faith and what are, in Calvin’s words, “articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith” (Institutes 4.1.12). Does our church have a shared sense of Christian faithfulness? Or has the celebration of personal freedom rendered us incapable of agreeing on what a “manner of life [that is] a demonstration of the Christian gospel” looks like?
These are open questions. It may be that the church does not now have a sufficiently cohesive sense of Christian faith and faithfulness to exercise its constitutional responsibilities consistently. Again, the task Force is not naïve about this. That is why recommendations 1-4 precede recommendation 5. Theological and ecclesial “essentials” cannot be determined by drawing up an abstract checklist. “Manner of life” cannot be defined by devising a moral catalogue. Only committed, sustained, communal inquiry has a chance of leading to the recovery of a shared faith that will enable the church to declare to its members and to the world “who and what it is, what it believes, and what it resolves to do” (G-2.0100.) Thus, the Task Force calls on the church to stay together in renewed commitment (recommendation 1), engage in processes of intensive discernment (recommendation 2), engage in theological study (recommendation 3), and explore alternatives to parliamentary procedure in discerning and deciding (recommendation 4.)
It is possible to quibble with some of the recommendations’ particulars. The Task Force’s experience cannot be replicated, its “Theological Reflection” may be too thin to sustain deep inquiry, and alternative forms of decision-making have their own dangers. Nevertheless, recommendations 1-4 point to our church’s desperate need and suggest ways in which we could live together in patterns of mutual responsibility and reciprocal faithfulness. Thus, recommendations 1-4 make possible a measure of hope in recommendation 5; without them, recommendation 5 becomes a mere exercise in ecclesiastical politics. The first four recommendations also point us back to the 32 pages of the report that precede and ground all of the recommendations.
The Task Force report and recommendations present us with the possibility of restoring theological and ecclesial integrity to our examination of candidates for ordination and installation as ministers, elders, and deacons, thus enhancing the capacity of the church’s ordered ministries “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith” (Ephesians 4:12,13.)
Ah, but a thought experiment can only take us so far. We have to return to the reality of our controversy about the ordination of gay and lesbian persons and the presence of Task Force recommendation 6. The controversy is decades old, which means that decisions taken by numerous votes in general assemblies and presbyteries have not resolved the issue. Moreover, it means that the very process of our decision-making has not been helpful in resolving the issue. That may be why recommendation 6 calls for the 217th General Assembly (2006) to take no action on removing existing authoritative interpretations or G-6.0106b. It asks the church to put aside — at least for a time — its reliance on yes/no, winner-take-all procedures, and to endeavor — at least for a while — to live out our church’s life differently.
The Task Force report and recommendations express confidence in our capacity to reclaim a common life that is committed to the truth of the gospel in faith, hope, and love. The Task Force’s confidence may be misplaced. But it may be true that what they discovered through their own serious, sustained attention to Christian faith and faithfulness may be ours to discover as well.
Joseph D. Small is coordinator and Charles A. Wiley an associate in the PC(USA) Office of Theology and Worship. Both are core members of Re-Forming Ministry.
