The moderator of the General Assembly has recently written that the confessions of the church are effectively without authority. That puts us in a troublesome predicament — a pickle. So how did we get there?
The matter arose at last year’s General Assembly, when a motion to allow same-sex marriages was ruled out of order because it violated Part I of our constitution, the Book of Confessions. Robert’s Rules of Order declares that any resolution that violates the constitution of an organization is out of order (and void if approved). The stated clerk referred it to the chair of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC), who said that since the confessions are historical documents, multiple in number and with many interpretations, they could not be a standard for finding the motion out of order. The moderator so ruled and the GA voted to approve. This has been percolating ever since, surfacing recently with the moderator’s statement.
It turns out that the advice given by the chair of the ACC was part of the decision of the denomination’s top court, the GAPJC, in Parnell v. Presbytery of San Francisco, decided in April 2012, which determined that the confessions could not be used as a standard to prevent the ordination of a noncelibate gay or lesbian. In that ruling, the GAPJC first noted that the 1927 Swearingen Commission determined that the General Assembly does not have the authority to prohibit a session or presbytery from ordaining someone, even when there is a question of whether the candidate conforms to our theological and confessional standards. That has been law for a long time, and the GAPJC could have ended the matter there. But it did not. It went further:
“The Book of Confessions reflects that the Church listens to a multitude of voices in shaping its beliefs. The Book of Confessions is hardly univocal, containing as it does eleven different creeds, catechisms, and confessions of faith written over millennia of Christian witness. They each ‘arose in response to particular circumstances within the history of God’s people. … They are the result of prayer, thought and experience within a living tradition. … They affirm a common faith tradition, while also from time to time standing in tension with each other’ (F-2.01). Therefore, the confessional tradition is, itself, an instrument of reform. The Book of Confessions, much like Scripture itself, requires discernment and interpretation when its standards are to be applied in the life and mission of the church.”
So here is where we stand: Swearingen limited the power of the GA on ordinations; Parnell limited the authority of confessions as a standard for ordination; the GA made the limitation a general principle when it said the confessions could not be a standard that rendered an action out of order or void. We now are in a serious pickle, for it would appear that councils can no longer be constrained by the confessions. (What this might means for disciplinary proceedings is very disturbing.)
Out of the pickle
I believe we are in significant disarray, because no doctrinal authority has sway. We now can rely only on councils, whose authority and powers are laid out in the Form of Government. So how do we proceed, how can the church find direction?
I begin with the premise that the church has the authority to interpret Scripture. This principle was established by the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), where Paul brought this question: Must a Christian follow the scriptural requirement to be circumcised? How about dietary rules? Despite the facts that the church at that time had not yet declared itself separate from Judaism, and that the only Scripture to consider was what we now call the Old Testament, the Jerusalem Council wrote that it seemed right to them and the Holy Spirit that these very clear and long-accepted scriptural standards no longer applied. That was the basic step that set us free, not only from the constraints of Judaism, but also from the notion that Scripture is a rigid set of rules or absolutes.
I also propose that the church has full authority on how to go about seeking the will of the Holy Spirit. We Presbyterians have done that in a truly elegant way, laying out principles and procedures in our polity that make it possible to find the will of Christ when we meet in councils.
Finally, I lift up this as the pristine, primary, full duty of the church: to seek and implement the will of Christ. This is to be done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. One of the saddest of all our errors emerges when there is a shift from seeking the will of God in our councils to seeking to win our cause. And one of the greater conceits may be claiming that a proposition is true even when the church has voted against it.
So our tradition makes this outrageous claim: When we seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit is manifest when we discuss and debate and fight over and vote on issues in our committees and councils. This process opens the channel for the Holy Spirit to whisper in her still, small voice. But here arises a major difficulty. In these times of discord, many claim “process” is the cause of the problems we face. One does not have to wait very long to hear someone say that our problem is Robert’s Rules, or that it is the debates we have on the floors of our councils. Because of that kind of attitude, some are inclined to shortcut or evade these processes.
I believe heated debates are not per se troublesome, even when they make us uncomfortable. I give no credence to the claim that we have gotten into this pickle because of our polity and processes. I have been a stated clerk for 18 years, and I can testify that in nearly every case where there is real trouble, it arises when we do not honor the procedures and processes laid out in the Book of Order.
So we are in a pickle. We have eroded the theological authority that undergirds our very existence. It has taken us a generation to get into it. It will likely take a generation to get us out, for there are no quick exits to a pickle. But we can begin now.
We can begin by embracing the structural processes and procedures we have. By bringing our issues to open debate, not discussions in caucuses, or meetings behind closed doors, or judicial proceedings that make big decisions for the whole church. By ensuring that there is theological diversity at every level of our proceedings.
By learning, really learning and understanding, parliamentary procedure, so we don’t get hung up on it or allow its improper use.
By accepting the notion that our processes and procedures when well and fairly employed will generate outcomes far better than the ones any of us advocate, albeit more slowly.
And above all, by surrendering the notion that in our deliberations the goal is to win our cause. For when we do that, we surrender our calling to exhibit the Kingdom of God to the world, and we become a reflection of the world.
A caveat
I must end with a caveat about my own advice. A consequence of adherence to procedure is the tendency to assume that where “proper” procedure is followed, the outcome is automatically correct. We have all seen the legal system resist reversing jury decisions even when new, overwhelming evidence emerges. It is a natural position to take when one believes process always begets truth. But that is a false belief. We recognize this in our acknowledgement that all synods and councils may err. And in the calling we embrace that we are the church reformed, always to be reformed according to the Word of God in the power of the Spirit.
ED KOSTER is stated clerk of the Presbytery of Detroit.
Click here to read a response from Neal Presa, Moderator of the 220th General Assembly.
