In the aftermath of the 2007 General Assembly we have observed the controversies breaking out concerning the meaning and significance of the Assembly’s actions. In particular, we have heard the criticisms and complaints that the Birmingham Assembly’s action of adopting (with amendment) Recommendation Five of the Theological Task Force on the PUP of the Church has brought us less peace, unity, and purity than we had before.
As two members of the Task Force who helped develop Recommendation Five, who now continue to work together, and who feel a responsibility to promote shared understanding, we want to do what we can here to set the record straight.
We appreciate the grave concerns being expressed by critics of the TTF report. We esteem as brothers and sisters those who find themselves caught on the same side of the aisle as those GA commissioners who found themselves in the voting minority. One of the chief teachings of the Task Force, in fact, is that minority positions held in good faith need to be respected. Moreover, the Task Force urged the church to avoid situations in which the majority rides roughshod over minority concerns. Accordingly, we write these reflections in the spirit of ongoing dialogue. We believe that dialogue offers hope for mutual understanding and for moving the whole church forward together.
Understanding the Authoritative Interpretation: What’s Does It Really Mean?
Much of the discord pertains to the Assembly’s new Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 of the Book of Order (see box below). G-6.0108 was added to the BOO at the time of the 1983 reunion of the UPCUSA and PCUS churches. It holds together polity principles that exist in a certain tension. That tension was first articulated in the Adopting Act in 1729 when American Presbyterians required subscription to the Westminster Standards, on the one hand, but on the other hand, limited subscription only to those standards that were essential and necessary. The TF Final Report (lines 809 — 903) describes some of these ongoing tensions in American church polity. It states that “Presbyterians have regularly sought:
· to honor communal discernment of God’s will and the Spirit’s leading while also recognizing that God alone is Lord of the conscience under the authority of scripture,
· to adhere to essential and necessary beliefs and practices that bind the faithful into the body of Christ while also respecting freedom in non-essential matters of belief, worship, piety, witness and service, …
· to uphold the rights and responsibilities of governing bodies that have original jurisdiction in church governance while also sustaining the rights and responsibilities of governing bodies that have the power of oversight and review.”
Throughout our history, we Presbyterians have tried to honor each side of these paired tensions without allowing either side to trump the other.
With this in mind, the Task Force concluded that the wisdom contained in G-6.0108 needed to be lifted up and clarified through an Authoritative Interpretation (see box). The purpose of the AI was not to change the current ordination standards of the church but to clarify how those standards work, not to change the constitution but to clarify what the constitution says. In clarifying the tensions held together in G-6.0108, the AI underscored four things:
1. There are church-wide standards, which are set by the whole church solely in accordance with the constitutional process.
2. Local governing bodies have a constitutional responsibility to apply these standards on a case-by-case basis.
3. There is protection of individual conscience in matters that are non-essential–that is, in matters over which reasonable Presbyterians may legitimately differ.
4. There is protection of the whole church through judicial review of local decisions.
If these are hard to remember, think of them as four “C’s”: Church-wide standards, Case-by-case application, Conscience preserved, and Capacity for review.
The first principle–church-wide standards–bears on both the “essential tenets” controversy and disputes over the fidelity-chastity ordination standard (G-6.0106b). The word “solely” in the first principle is important. This means that ordaining bodies do not have the prerogative of either adding to the constitutional standards or disregarding those standards, including G-6.0106b. Nor do they have the authority to create super-standards or to draw up their own litmus test of which parts of the constitution will apply and which will not. Frankly, any attempt to boil down the Bible into a summary statement runs the risk of trampling God’s authoritative word. That’s why the creeds and confessions were developed so deliberately and carefully. Writing summaries of such summaries easily deteriorates into what missional theologian Darrell Guder calls “Gospel reductionism”–reducing the fullness of the gospel to something written in our own image. It is the entire constitution and not merely some part of it that applies in every ordination decision. And it is the whole church that sets the standards.
The second principle–case-by-case application–is equally important in the current climate of controversy. Some have interpreted the new AI as empowering governing bodies to “set their own standards” or to “determine the essentials.” This is precisely what the AI does not do. No local governing body may set standards or determine a set of essentials in the abstract. Instead, the AI is very specific. It says that local governing bodies have the power to “determine their membership.” That is, they vote on persons, not on standards. And specifically, they must determine two things about the person who stands before them. They must determine whether this person’s beliefs or practices depart from the standards. If so, they then must determine whether the departure is serious enough to bar ordination. Does it constitute a departure from something essential? There is nothing new in this. In fact, everyone who has been in ministry or has served in a governing body for any length of time is familiar with the need, from time to time, to make tough judgments about the people with whom we work. G-6.0106b says that “obedience to Scripture” is required of all, but we know that no one obeys Scripture perfectly. Every one of us is a sinner. Every one of us believes and acts in ways that depart from the church’s official standards. Some of us depart in ways that are relatively minor, some of us in ways that are egregious. It falls to the examining body to prayerfully discern how serious is each such departure.
The third principle–protection of conscience in the interpretation of Scripture–has been affirmed in Reformed churches ever since Calvin reminded us that “God alone is Lord of the conscience.” But then, remembering that all principles stand in tension with others, conscience does not have the final word. Our consciences are to be held captive to the Word of God. So then, when do we honor a person’s conscience, and when do we inform them that their conscience has strayed? The test, according to G-6.0108 is the one affirmed by seventeenth century Lutheran and Reformed divines: in essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity.
Unfortunately, some today are contesting this longstanding principle. One strategy is to bind the conscience of the candidate. They contend that all standards in the constitution are essential and binding on the candidate, with no exceptions. Yet this claim collapses upon itself. The standards, as contained in the Book of Confessions, include, for instance, two different doctrines of election (single predestination and double predestination), two different doctrines of the Lord’s Supper (real presence and symbolic presence), and more than one understanding of the authority of Scripture (infallible versus compelling witness). It is impossible to ask candidates for ordination to hold each of these contrasting positions as “essential.” In fact, the candidate must make choices in his or her statement of faith, and the governing body must make judgments about those choices.
Another strategy is to bind the hands of the governing body, declaring in advance what is or is not a legitimate interpretation of Scripture and the confessions. Yes, some PJC decisions (e.g. Londonderry) prohibit governing bodies from a blanket decision to ignore a constitutional provision. But other PJC decisions make it illegitimate to remove from a governing body its constitutional responsibility to engage in discernment regarding the candidates before them. In the context of G-6.0106b this includes discernment of what the confessions call sin, of whether the candidate is repentant, etc. In other words, governing bodies are entitled to vote against candidates they believe have departed from essentials, but they are not entitled to remove from the individual candidate his or her right to come before the governing body and to make a case from Scripture for his or her particular point of view. To remove that right in advance and to lay down such across-the-board rules undercut the very thing that brings governing bodies together in the first place: a gathering before Scripture, under the guidance of the Spirit, mindful of the whole witness of the confessions, to seek the will of God. Take this away, and you have taken away the soul of Presbyterianism.
The fourth principle–protection of the church through judicial review–is one that has generated considerable confusion. Some have charged that the AI in its original form only allowed for procedural and not substantive review of a local governing body’s decisions. In retrospect we realize that this was an understandable interpretation, but it is not the meaning we intended. The AI intended to affirm the current standard of review in the church, which stems from the 1991 PJC decision of Rankin v. National Capitol Union Presbytery. That decision held that, upon review, the PJC must determine in an ordination decision whether the governing body “acted reasonably, responsibly, and deliberately within the constitution of the church.” It went on to say that ordinarily the PJC will not substitute its judgment for that of the governing body, but that the decision may be overturned if there are “extraordinary grounds.” In alluding to extraordinary grounds, the decision specifically mentioned things like the doctrine of the Trinity, the atonement, or the person of Christ. The AI quotes the “reasonably, responsibly, and deliberately” language. The General Assembly added further language from Rankin to clarify that the review includes monitoring compliance “within the constitution of the church.” In short, judicial review is protected. Any ordination decision can be appealed if it fails to conform to the constitution in either the way it proceeded or in the substance of its action.
What’s a Governing Body to Do?
We believe that if the church gets clear what the AI actually says, most of the objections will go away. Indeed, that is what happened on the GA’s Ecclesiology Committee as they considered the TTF report. The more they studied the proposal, the more support it gathered. After four days of listening to testimony from around the church, hearing from the TTF, listening to objections and having those objections answered, the Ecclesiology Committee approved this TTF recommendation by a resounding 65%. To be sure, a minority disagreed, and this disagreement persists to this day. But governing bodies operating after the Birmingham Assembly can work through such disagreements without revving up the overture machine.
First and foremost, sessions and presbyteries can constructively implement the first four recommendations of the TTF. Not only did a diverse task force of 20 persons approve these recommendations unanimously, the GA adopted them overwhelmingly.
Recommendation One calls upon the PC(USA) to stay together in one body. This was a call, in other words, to renew our organic and spiritual connection as the body of Christ. Not to pursue strategies to leave with property or to return to old battle lines from the past, but to come together in common faith before our common Lord, Jesus Christ. How are we to do this in the face of our differences? The answer is provided in Recommendation Two. The TTF placed before the church a remarkable challenge, asking every governing body throughout the country to do what worked for the TTF itself, namely to come together across party lines and, by grace, to engage in worship, Bible study, prayer, fellowship, and Christian conversation.
Somehow this recommendation seems to have been lost. It requires a serious commitment of time and spiritual energy. It requires a detailed action plan in every governing body. What would it look like for every governing body to devote serious time to worship, prayer, study of the apostles’ teaching, and to renewing their devotion to Jesus Christ and to one another? This recommendation was not offered as a one-time quick fix. It is a demanding, serious proposal. Were we to engage in it, we would not have much time left to wrangle with one another over other things.
But if we agree to come together in this way, how will we move beyond our differences and find common ground? Recommendation Three invites the whole church to study the TTF’s Theological Prologue (lines 10-260). Written by many hands, but spoken in one voice, the Theological Prologue is rooted in the faith of the church catholic, the convictions of the Protestant Reformation, and the theological stance of a Reformed and being reformed tradition. The prologue does not speak the last word theologically, but it can serve as a starting point for serious theological dialogue. What could be more important than renewing the theological vitality of every governing body in the church? Imagine a church that takes this call seriously?
Still, we are realists. Even if we come together in worship, study, and prayer, there will always be disagreements. There were in the early church. What do we do when they arise? Recommendation Four urges the church to avoid up or down votes but to seek alternative forms of dispute resolution where possible.
What’s a Presbyterian to do?
What else shall we do? In particular, how can presbyters respond to the adoption of recommendation number 5, the new Authoritative Interpretation?
Some presbyteries have adopted or are contemplating adopting their own articulation of essential tenets of the faith, which shall be binding on their ministry candidates. As we have stated above, this is unconstitutional. However, presbyteries and sessions can take actions to guard the essential tenets of the faith, particularly in the context of examining candidates’ readiness to serve as ministers, elders or deacons.
Doing such examinations constitutes one of the most holy tasks entrusted to a governing body. That governing body must assess whether this person has the personal faith, the theological acuity, the spiritual depth, the educational comprehension, the social and pastoral skills, the personal discipline and judgment, the leadership training, the work habits, and other personal qualities to step into this role. Discernment is the key gift to fulfill this task. It carries out its obligation best as it studies and upholds the standards of the church, seeks the leading of the Holy Spirit, considers the common sense of the people, and weighs the enormity of the task against the preparedness of the candidate.
Accordingly, presbyteries and sessions could require the best of their candidates. For example, most presbyteries require their candidates for ordination or transfer to prepare a written statement of their faith. Some require a statement outlining their spiritual journey and sense of call. Why not also require a statement that answers the question, “Tell us how your ‘manner of life [is] …a demonstration of the gospel in the church and in the world'” (G-6.0106a)? A presbytery may also direct all candidates to specifically declare if they hold any scruples, any points of departure they take from the beliefs or requirements outlined in the church constitution.
Out of pastoral sensitivity to such candidates and out of the need to guide the work of the ordaining/examining body, it is appropriate to express in writing some guidelines for candidates. The ordaining body can outline some of the sections of the Constitution that they will want the candidates to explain. They can offer a list of some of the questions that they likely will be asking. They can even stress some positions they consider to be particularly important. While the governing body cannot codify in stone any such articulation of beliefs, they certainly can outline some core convictions that go to the heart of the faith.
A second thing to do is to follow the TTF’s call for more serious examinations of candidates. Instead of delegating all ministerial examinations to a committee, all such candidates–both for ordination and for transfer–can be examined on the floor of their respective presbyteries. Or, at minimum, a policy can be adopted that requires examining committees to bring before the governing body all candidates who depart from any standards, so that forbearance can be extended only upon a vote of the whole body.
Whatever governing bodies do, they will do best to move ahead together. The above suggestions do not exhaust the ways to move ahead. Many sisters and brothers in the denomination are proposing creative ways to live faithfully together in the light of our changing situation. One thing that will serve us best is to take our time to consider carefully and thoughtfully just how we will proceed. To listen to the heart as well as voices of those expressing concern from various regions of the theological spectrum. To sort carefully through the ramifications of any changes in policy and practice. To take action not precipitously but deliberately.
In that spirit, we do echo what’s suggested elsewhere in this edition of the Outlook, namely, to take a deep breath and turn to Acts 5 to hear the counsel of Rabbi Gamaliel. His community of faith was being challenged by a new movement that seemed to be overturning so many marks of the true faith. Yet he laid hold of sufficient confidence in God to utter, “if this plan or this understanding is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them–in that case you may even be found fighting against God!”
We certainly would not compare the recommendations of the TTF to the apostolic proclamation of the Gospel, but we are willing to trust God to either vindicate or amend or replace the recommendations we helped prepare and the GA approved. In the meantime, we would urge us all to hang in together.
William Stacy Johnson is Arthur M. Adams Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary and chair of the board for the Presbyterian Outlook Foundation, Inc. Jack Haberer is editor of The Presbyterian Outlook.
| G-6.0108 from the Book of Order: a. 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 as expressed in The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government. So far as may be possible without serious departure from these standards, without infringing on the rights and views of others, and without obstructing the constitutional governance of the church, freedom of conscience with respect to the interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained. b. It is to be recognized, however, that in becoming a candidate or officer of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds. His or her conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church so long as he or she continues to seek or hold office in that body. The decision as to whether a person has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made initially by the individual concerned but ultimately becomes the responsibility of the governing body in which he or she serves. (G-1.0301; G-1.0302) c. Persons seeking to be received as candidates for ministry in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall have their attention drawn to the constitutional documents of the church including its statement on freedom of conscience. (G14.0304) The Authoritative Interpretation as amended and adopted by the 217th General Assembly: a. The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government of the Book of Order set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation. b. These standards are determined by the whole church, after the careful study of Scripture and theology, solely by the constitutional process of approval by the General Assembly with the approval of the presbyteries. These standards may be interpreted by the General Assembly and its Permanent Judicial Commission. c. Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards to those elected to office. These determinations include: (1) Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office, (2) Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation. d. Whether the examination and ordination and installation decision comply with the Constitution of the PC(USA), and whether the ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing bodies. e. All parties should endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another’s decisions, according the presumption of wisdom to ordaining/installing bodies in examining candidates and to the General Assembly, with presbyteries’ approval, in setting standards.
|
