http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=2754
This is a link to the Book Jesus Christ: Savior & Lord This link is maintained by IVP, the publisher and is a mandatory link to our posted excerpt.
Grace & Peace,
+Rusty & Pat
Monday, November 17, 2008
Status Confessionis in Contemporary Theologians
Taken from Jesus Christ: Savior and Lord by Donald G. Bloesch. Copyright (c) 1997 by Donald G. Bloesch. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press, P.O. Box 1400, Downers Grove IL 60515-1426. www.ivpress.com
Relevant Excerpt from
Jesus Christ: Savior and Lord
by Donald G. Bloesch
© 1997; IVP; Downers Grove, IL
LCC #: BT202.B49
ISBN: 0-8308-1414-0
From Chapter 10: “The Finality of Christ” — Pgs. 243 - 249
An Emerging Confessional Situation
Theologians of various persuasions are beginning to speak of a new confessional situation, a status confessionis, as the church finds itself engulfed in a crisis concerning the integrity of its message and the validity of its language. The many attempts today to resymbolize God and to reconceive Christ are signs that people of faith may be called again to battle for the truth, to engage in a new Kirchenkampf (Church struggle).
The problem of theological authority has become especially acute, since it would seem that cultural experience is supplanting the biblical witness as the ruling criterion for faith and practice. An emerging neognosticism locates truth in the alteration of consciousness rather than in the an event in sacred history. The philosopher Schopenhauer, a favorite of New Agers, has declared that we are justified neither by faith nor by works but by knowledge. Tillich’s contention that self-discovery is God-discovery betrays a gnostic mentality. When Carl Jung asserts “I do not believe, I know,” he is placing his trust in intuitive knowledge over historical revelation.
In feminist circles there is a call for a new canon and a Third Testament that would drastically alter the foundations of the faith. Rosemary Ruether pleads for augmenting the canon with writings that manifest a sensitivity to the concerns of women and other oppressed peoples. She recommends including tracts drawn from goddess religions, Gnosticism and marginal Christian traditions often deemed heretical.
The new mood in the culture was strikingly anticipated by Ralph Waldo Emerson, on of the mentors of the new spirituality: “Man is weak to the extent that he looks outside himself for help. It is only as he throws himself unhesitatingly upon the God within himself that he learns his own power and works miracles.” The motto of the New Age is struggle, growth and freedom as opposed to the biblical motto: faith repentance and service.
The loss of transcendence is especially disconcerting when we consider the theological options today. There seems to be a confluence of various theological movements (liberationist, feminist, neomystical, process) toward a religion of radical immanence in which human experience and imagination preempt biblical revelation as the measuring rod for truth.
That real heresy is now a problem in the Church is attested by the frequent attempts to downgrade the Old Testament. Johann Semler, one of the first German theologians to apply the historical-critical method to the study of Scripture, described the Old Testament as “a collection of crude Jewish prejudices diametrically opposed to Christianity.” Complaining that the Old Testament promotes a legalistic type of thought, Schleiermacher recommended that it be ranked as a mere appendage to the New Testament. Radical feminists see the Old Testament as incurably patriarchal and the Sky Father, the supposed god of the Old Testament, as an obstacle to women’s liberation. Existentialist and process theologians view large parts of the Bible as mythological and have assigned themselves the task of translating what they consider basically poetry into a modern ontology. There is some sentiment in liberationist circles to deemphasize the Jewish matrix of Scripture out of a commitment to the rights of Palestinians.
What is ominous is that the new theologies, which are for the most part aligned with ideological movements, are seeking to revamp the worship practices of the church, notably through the production of radically altered prayer books and hymnals. Father language for God is being drastically curtailed and new symbols for God are being offered: the infinite depth and ground of all being, the creative process, the Womb of Being, the Primal Matrix, the pool of unlimited power, the New Being, the power of being, the Eternal Now, and so on. Try praying t one of these!
In November 1989 the Anglican Church in New Zealand introduced a prayer book that not only eliminated allegedly sexist language but dropped most references to Zion and Israel. It was explained that a prayer manual was needed to offer texts more relevant to the Maoris and South Pacific Islanders. Wendy Ross, president of the New Zealand Jewish Council, protested: “The only precedent for this was the German church during the Nazi era that wanted to de-judaize the Scriptures. We don’t have copyright because [the Psalms] are too old, but it is our ancient and sacred literature and we don’t like having it distorted. . . . We regard the removal of the words Zion and Israel in most cases as profoundly anti-Jewish”
Such activities should remind us of the close parallels between the religious situation today and the situation of the church in Germany in the later 1920s and 1930s. The so-called represented that segment within the German church that sought to accommodate to the rising ideology of National Socialism. Hitler was hailed as a new Messiah, and the election that brought the Nazis to power was celebrated as an act of God. The German Christian were especially intent on combating the idea that revelation was limited to biblical times: it continues, they said, throughout human history — in every culture and race. The religious institutions of the German people were deemed equal (if not superior) in authority of the Bible. Scripture was reinterpreted through the lens of the Volkgeist (the spirit of the Germanic people). A concerted attempt was made to purge the Bible of Judaic expressions like “Zion” and “Hallelujah.” They preferred to speak of the people of God rather than of the people of Israel. Interestingly, in some radical circles God was conceived of androgynously and referred to as Father-Mother.
The German Christians enlisted in their support some of the leading theologians and biblical scholars, among them Gerhard Kittel, the erudite New Testament scholar; Emanuel Hirsch, a Kierkegaard scholar; and Paul Althaus, a renowned Luther scholar. Others beguiled at least for a time by the new ideology were Friedrich Gogarten, a former student of Troetsch; Rudolf Otto, well-known historian of religion; Werner Elert; Otto Weber; and Heinrich Bornkamm. The respected Catholic theologian Karl Adam, who later broke decisively with the Nazis, gave this tribute to Hitler at the time of his meteoric rise to power: “Now he stands before us as the one for whom the voices of our poets and sages called, as the liberator of the German genius, who took the blindfold from our eyes and — through all the political, economic, social and confessional veils — let us see and love the one essential: our unity of blood, our German self, the homo Germanus.”
It was against the German Christian compromise that the Confessing Church movement emerged with its vigorous attack on natural theology and its bold reaffirmation of the uniqueness of the revelation of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Scriptures. In the words of the Barmen Declaration, drawn up primarily by Barth:
Jesus Christ, as He is testified to us in the Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God, whom we are to hear, whom we are to trust and obey in life and in death. We repudiate the false teaching that the powers, images and truths as divine revelation alongside this one Word of God, as a source of her preaching.
This statement does not rule out the possibility that God may communicate his light and truth in various ways, but it does insist that the church is bound in its proclamation to the definitive and incomparable revelation given in Jesus Christ. In the fourth article the church is urged to take care not to accommodate its message to prevailing ideological and political winds.
As in prewar Germany, there is currently in the nations of the West a resurgence of interest in the occult, a growing openness to Eastern religions and the rise of a naturistic mysticism. Pluralism is celebrated as something good in its own right; the destructive or demonic side of religion is conveniently overlooked. An inclusivistic mentality regards with disdain any appeal to a particular revelation or an absolutist claim to religious truth. The mst we can achieve is a “relative absoluteness” in which our religious way becomes only one among others, though through dialogue we can gain some further intimation of the infinite mystery that hovers over all religions.
The god of pluralism and inclusivism can be a jealous god; whatever does not fit into a pluralistic or globalistic agenda is condemned as backward and provincial. Theological semanaries in the mainline churches today are remarkably open to including Buddhists and Hindus on their staff but are conspicuously reluctant to invite scholars identified with either the old Catholicism or the evangelical side of Protestantism.
The battle today is between the historical Christian faith with its confession of the reality of a supernatural God and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the new spirituality, which embraces most of the recent theological and religious movements. It is the difference between a biblical monotheism and a naturalistic panentheism, between a catholic evangelicalism and a neomysticism and neognosticism. One side defends both the particularity of divine revelations and the universality of its claims and mission; the other champions an inclusivistic or global vision.
Class conflict is also an important factor in this growing cleavage. Those who constitute the so-called new class — upwardly mobile professionals, teachers and social workers — are open to an inclusivistic and relativistic worldview, for it lends moral sanction to their growing affluence. On the other hand, those identified with the older business and farming interests are more likely to defend traditional moral values and religious claims. The New Age movement could aptly be called a royal theology, for it justifies the privileged status of the upper middle and upper classes by its doctrine of karma, in which social status is determined by merits or demerits accumulated in previous states of existence. Shirley MacLaine, one of the gurus of this movement, argues that “if you’re poor or unemployed — you have only yourself to blame. You have victimized yourself by not living up to your potential.” The key to changing society, they say, lies in a transformation of consciousness.
Against this view biblical Christianity insists that the key to changing the world is the atoning death and glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The world can be changed because it already has been changed through the miraculous intervention of the living God into human history. The powers of darkness have already been defeated, and therefore the future of the human race is not bleak but filled with hope and promise.
A truly just society is dependent not on experiments in social engineering, not on the cultivation of a global consciousness, not on an amalgamation of the world religions, but on a universal acknowledgment of the reality of the holy and living God of the Scriptures and acceptance of the message that he has acted decisively and irrevocably for the salvation of the human race through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The hope of humanity rests on the kingdom of God, which is now at work in our midst, and on its consummation through the coming again of Jesus Christ in power and glory when his universal lordship will be assured to all who repent and believe.
In its witness, the church should not press for a return to a monolithic society in which church and state work together to ensure a Christian civilization, for such an undertaking would only draw the church away from its redemptive message and blur the lines between the church and the world. Neither should the church withdraw from society and cultivate little bastions of righteousness that strive to preserve the ethical and religious values handed down from the past. Instead, the church should witnes to the truth of the gospel in the very midst of society in the hope and expectation that this truth will work as the leaven that turns society toward a higher degree of justice and freedom. The church cannot build the kingdom of righteousness, but it can serve this kingdom by reminding the world that there is a transcendent order that stands in judgment over every worldly achievement and that the proper attitude of leaders of nations is one of humility before a holy God and caring concern for the disinherited and the oppressed.
Relevant Excerpt from
Jesus Christ: Savior and Lord
by Donald G. Bloesch
© 1997; IVP; Downers Grove, IL
LCC #: BT202.B49
ISBN: 0-8308-1414-0
From Chapter 10: “The Finality of Christ” — Pgs. 243 - 249
An Emerging Confessional Situation
Theologians of various persuasions are beginning to speak of a new confessional situation, a status confessionis, as the church finds itself engulfed in a crisis concerning the integrity of its message and the validity of its language. The many attempts today to resymbolize God and to reconceive Christ are signs that people of faith may be called again to battle for the truth, to engage in a new Kirchenkampf (Church struggle).
The problem of theological authority has become especially acute, since it would seem that cultural experience is supplanting the biblical witness as the ruling criterion for faith and practice. An emerging neognosticism locates truth in the alteration of consciousness rather than in the an event in sacred history. The philosopher Schopenhauer, a favorite of New Agers, has declared that we are justified neither by faith nor by works but by knowledge. Tillich’s contention that self-discovery is God-discovery betrays a gnostic mentality. When Carl Jung asserts “I do not believe, I know,” he is placing his trust in intuitive knowledge over historical revelation.
In feminist circles there is a call for a new canon and a Third Testament that would drastically alter the foundations of the faith. Rosemary Ruether pleads for augmenting the canon with writings that manifest a sensitivity to the concerns of women and other oppressed peoples. She recommends including tracts drawn from goddess religions, Gnosticism and marginal Christian traditions often deemed heretical.
The new mood in the culture was strikingly anticipated by Ralph Waldo Emerson, on of the mentors of the new spirituality: “Man is weak to the extent that he looks outside himself for help. It is only as he throws himself unhesitatingly upon the God within himself that he learns his own power and works miracles.” The motto of the New Age is struggle, growth and freedom as opposed to the biblical motto: faith repentance and service.
The loss of transcendence is especially disconcerting when we consider the theological options today. There seems to be a confluence of various theological movements (liberationist, feminist, neomystical, process) toward a religion of radical immanence in which human experience and imagination preempt biblical revelation as the measuring rod for truth.
That real heresy is now a problem in the Church is attested by the frequent attempts to downgrade the Old Testament. Johann Semler, one of the first German theologians to apply the historical-critical method to the study of Scripture, described the Old Testament as “a collection of crude Jewish prejudices diametrically opposed to Christianity.” Complaining that the Old Testament promotes a legalistic type of thought, Schleiermacher recommended that it be ranked as a mere appendage to the New Testament. Radical feminists see the Old Testament as incurably patriarchal and the Sky Father, the supposed god of the Old Testament, as an obstacle to women’s liberation. Existentialist and process theologians view large parts of the Bible as mythological and have assigned themselves the task of translating what they consider basically poetry into a modern ontology. There is some sentiment in liberationist circles to deemphasize the Jewish matrix of Scripture out of a commitment to the rights of Palestinians.
What is ominous is that the new theologies, which are for the most part aligned with ideological movements, are seeking to revamp the worship practices of the church, notably through the production of radically altered prayer books and hymnals. Father language for God is being drastically curtailed and new symbols for God are being offered: the infinite depth and ground of all being, the creative process, the Womb of Being, the Primal Matrix, the pool of unlimited power, the New Being, the power of being, the Eternal Now, and so on. Try praying t one of these!
In November 1989 the Anglican Church in New Zealand introduced a prayer book that not only eliminated allegedly sexist language but dropped most references to Zion and Israel. It was explained that a prayer manual was needed to offer texts more relevant to the Maoris and South Pacific Islanders. Wendy Ross, president of the New Zealand Jewish Council, protested: “The only precedent for this was the German church during the Nazi era that wanted to de-judaize the Scriptures. We don’t have copyright because [the Psalms] are too old, but it is our ancient and sacred literature and we don’t like having it distorted. . . . We regard the removal of the words Zion and Israel in most cases as profoundly anti-Jewish”
Such activities should remind us of the close parallels between the religious situation today and the situation of the church in Germany in the later 1920s and 1930s. The so-called represented that segment within the German church that sought to accommodate to the rising ideology of National Socialism. Hitler was hailed as a new Messiah, and the election that brought the Nazis to power was celebrated as an act of God. The German Christian were especially intent on combating the idea that revelation was limited to biblical times: it continues, they said, throughout human history — in every culture and race. The religious institutions of the German people were deemed equal (if not superior) in authority of the Bible. Scripture was reinterpreted through the lens of the Volkgeist (the spirit of the Germanic people). A concerted attempt was made to purge the Bible of Judaic expressions like “Zion” and “Hallelujah.” They preferred to speak of the people of God rather than of the people of Israel. Interestingly, in some radical circles God was conceived of androgynously and referred to as Father-Mother.
The German Christians enlisted in their support some of the leading theologians and biblical scholars, among them Gerhard Kittel, the erudite New Testament scholar; Emanuel Hirsch, a Kierkegaard scholar; and Paul Althaus, a renowned Luther scholar. Others beguiled at least for a time by the new ideology were Friedrich Gogarten, a former student of Troetsch; Rudolf Otto, well-known historian of religion; Werner Elert; Otto Weber; and Heinrich Bornkamm. The respected Catholic theologian Karl Adam, who later broke decisively with the Nazis, gave this tribute to Hitler at the time of his meteoric rise to power: “Now he stands before us as the one for whom the voices of our poets and sages called, as the liberator of the German genius, who took the blindfold from our eyes and — through all the political, economic, social and confessional veils — let us see and love the one essential: our unity of blood, our German self, the homo Germanus.”
It was against the German Christian compromise that the Confessing Church movement emerged with its vigorous attack on natural theology and its bold reaffirmation of the uniqueness of the revelation of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Scriptures. In the words of the Barmen Declaration, drawn up primarily by Barth:
Jesus Christ, as He is testified to us in the Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God, whom we are to hear, whom we are to trust and obey in life and in death. We repudiate the false teaching that the powers, images and truths as divine revelation alongside this one Word of God, as a source of her preaching.
This statement does not rule out the possibility that God may communicate his light and truth in various ways, but it does insist that the church is bound in its proclamation to the definitive and incomparable revelation given in Jesus Christ. In the fourth article the church is urged to take care not to accommodate its message to prevailing ideological and political winds.
As in prewar Germany, there is currently in the nations of the West a resurgence of interest in the occult, a growing openness to Eastern religions and the rise of a naturistic mysticism. Pluralism is celebrated as something good in its own right; the destructive or demonic side of religion is conveniently overlooked. An inclusivistic mentality regards with disdain any appeal to a particular revelation or an absolutist claim to religious truth. The mst we can achieve is a “relative absoluteness” in which our religious way becomes only one among others, though through dialogue we can gain some further intimation of the infinite mystery that hovers over all religions.
The god of pluralism and inclusivism can be a jealous god; whatever does not fit into a pluralistic or globalistic agenda is condemned as backward and provincial. Theological semanaries in the mainline churches today are remarkably open to including Buddhists and Hindus on their staff but are conspicuously reluctant to invite scholars identified with either the old Catholicism or the evangelical side of Protestantism.
The battle today is between the historical Christian faith with its confession of the reality of a supernatural God and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the new spirituality, which embraces most of the recent theological and religious movements. It is the difference between a biblical monotheism and a naturalistic panentheism, between a catholic evangelicalism and a neomysticism and neognosticism. One side defends both the particularity of divine revelations and the universality of its claims and mission; the other champions an inclusivistic or global vision.
Class conflict is also an important factor in this growing cleavage. Those who constitute the so-called new class — upwardly mobile professionals, teachers and social workers — are open to an inclusivistic and relativistic worldview, for it lends moral sanction to their growing affluence. On the other hand, those identified with the older business and farming interests are more likely to defend traditional moral values and religious claims. The New Age movement could aptly be called a royal theology, for it justifies the privileged status of the upper middle and upper classes by its doctrine of karma, in which social status is determined by merits or demerits accumulated in previous states of existence. Shirley MacLaine, one of the gurus of this movement, argues that “if you’re poor or unemployed — you have only yourself to blame. You have victimized yourself by not living up to your potential.” The key to changing society, they say, lies in a transformation of consciousness.
Against this view biblical Christianity insists that the key to changing the world is the atoning death and glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The world can be changed because it already has been changed through the miraculous intervention of the living God into human history. The powers of darkness have already been defeated, and therefore the future of the human race is not bleak but filled with hope and promise.
A truly just society is dependent not on experiments in social engineering, not on the cultivation of a global consciousness, not on an amalgamation of the world religions, but on a universal acknowledgment of the reality of the holy and living God of the Scriptures and acceptance of the message that he has acted decisively and irrevocably for the salvation of the human race through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The hope of humanity rests on the kingdom of God, which is now at work in our midst, and on its consummation through the coming again of Jesus Christ in power and glory when his universal lordship will be assured to all who repent and believe.
In its witness, the church should not press for a return to a monolithic society in which church and state work together to ensure a Christian civilization, for such an undertaking would only draw the church away from its redemptive message and blur the lines between the church and the world. Neither should the church withdraw from society and cultivate little bastions of righteousness that strive to preserve the ethical and religious values handed down from the past. Instead, the church should witnes to the truth of the gospel in the very midst of society in the hope and expectation that this truth will work as the leaven that turns society toward a higher degree of justice and freedom. The church cannot build the kingdom of righteousness, but it can serve this kingdom by reminding the world that there is a transcendent order that stands in judgment over every worldly achievement and that the proper attitude of leaders of nations is one of humility before a holy God and caring concern for the disinherited and the oppressed.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
By The Numbers
Here is a brief update on recent developments on the cusp of our Presbytery vote.
- We have eleven Sessions from Beaver Butler Presbytery who have endorsed the Declaration.
- We have ten minister members of Beaver-Butler Presbytery who have endorsed the Declaration.
- We have had several meetings with various evangelical groups within the Presbytery and are confident that the Declaration will pass on the floor but not without significant debate and some serious dissension.
- We have received phone calls and e-mails from Churches in Coastal Carolina Presbytery, San Diego Presbytery, Presbytery of Atlanta, Shenango Presbytery and West Virginia Presbytery who are interested in potentially getting this document to the floor of their own Presbyteries. The First Presbyterian Church of Nitro, WV, along with one of their elders and their Pastor, have endorsed the Declaration and intend to present it to West Virginia Presbytery just as we have presented it to Beaver Butler in order to make it a Presbytery Declaration rather than just the Declaration of one congregation. Our prayers and support are with you Nitro!
Some interesting developments have taken place over the last few weeks throughout our denomination concerning the issues our document raises.
- San Diego Presbytery has made a Declaration of their own asking for the re-convening of the 218th General Assembly to reverse its decisions. We appear to share the same concerns.
- San Joaquin Presbytery has made a Declaration of their own outlining their intention to study the issues and write a more thorough response while still expressing their grave concerns over the 218th GA. We appear to share the same concerns.
- Central Washington Presbytery has made a Declaration of their own outlining their intention to study a possible departure from the PC USA as a Presbytery because of the actions of the 218th GA. We appear to share the same concerns.
- While all this has been progressing, the Covenant Network has held their annual conference and marshaled their plans and legal muscle to move their agenda forward under the auspices of the decisions of the 218th GA. They have also expressed their clear intent to never quit this fight until they get what they want.
Where do we go from here?
We obviously have a fair bit of affinity among us concerning the issues pressing us. We appear to have several Presbyteries who are prepared to take similar steps to address those concerns. It would seem providential and prodigious for us to combine our efforts as one. We are game for an e-meeting with representatives from interested Sessions, Presbyteries, and even Synods, should they be so led, to discuss what we might do as a corporate, univocal statement and/or plan. We will begin promoting a time for a get together in cyberspace after our Presbytery meeting.
In Christ
Pat and Rusty
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Open meeting
We are encouraging anyone interested to come by Park United Presbyterian Church in Zelienople on October 30th at 7:00 PM for an open discussion of the declaration and strategies related to it. Anyone who is in the area, whether in this Presbytery or not, is welcome to attend and participate in the discussion. We look forward to seeing you there!
In Christ
Pat and Rusty
Address:
115 East Grandview Ave.
Zelienople, PA
on the northeast corner of Rte. 19 and Rte. 68 (Main Street and Grandview Ave) in Zelienople
it's the red brick Church next to the gazebo
In Christ
Pat and Rusty
Address:
115 East Grandview Ave.
Zelienople, PA
on the northeast corner of Rte. 19 and Rte. 68 (Main Street and Grandview Ave) in Zelienople
it's the red brick Church next to the gazebo
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Is this really the right time?
Is this the right time for Status Confessionis?
An analysis of concerns and the practical outworkings of Advisory Opinion #22
During the past few weeks Rusty and I have been receiving and fielding a number of comments and concerns via e-mail and face to face conversations, mostly with members of Beaver-Butler Presbytery but also with voices around the broader PC USA denomination. We have received more questions. Some of them are repeats that we have addressed in this blog before. We have found that the Spirit is generating more refined answers to these questions and that the questions are evolving, as is the case with any good argument. This post is an attempt to address those old and new questions with sharper responses. We would like to thank all of those who responded because all of these responses aided in the development of our own understanding and further convinced us of the urgency for this declaration in this time in the life of our denomination.
The feedback we have received has been extensive. There is a broad group of people who understand what the declaration is all about and agree not only with its principles but also with its particulars. For that we rejoice. We have also received criticism (some of it constructive and some of it frothing with resentment but all of it helpful) from those on the left, those on the right, and even those in the middle (however that spectrum might be determined). Generally, concerns have fallen into three kinds of broad categories. Some of our conservative friends, with whom we share profound theological common ground, have accused us of being too nice or even cowardly. They say that the declaration has no teeth and that it should advocate for the departure of the whole Presbytery from the PC USA. Some of our institutionalist friends, who tend toward preservation of the institution at all costs, have accused us of hubris and of not being nice enough. They say we have created a mountain out of a molehill. Some of our friends on the left (and yes we do have friends on that end of the spectrum) have accused us of being knee-jerk crybabies who, after having won so many battles at GA or in Presbytery votes, are now ready to take our ball and go home after we lose one. In effect, they tell us that we were just getting interesting and are wondering why it is that we wish to react, in their estimation, with such a drastic measure.
In order to answer all of these concerns, we believe it is best to return to a basic understanding of what the GA did, what it did not do, and what we can expect as a result of their rulings. We believe the declaration answers these questions in its present form if one reads it in detail but obviously people are concerned on certain points so they bear further clarification/elaboration. This will require us to revisit some previous questions on this blog.
What is Status Confessionis?
A previous posting referenced an article on WRAC’s website concerning the definition of the term. It gives the historical background of the term and how it applies today. As we understand it, Status Confessionis is a simple declaration that the errant upper governing body, in this case the 218th GA, has left the Church constitutionally, confessionally, and biblically and, because of their profound errors, we will not go along nor can we be compelled to unless and until the upper governing reverses its folly and comes back to orthodoxy and orthopraxy. So far as we are aware, it is the only form of ecclesiastical protest that has any confessional and historic warrant within the Reformed tradition. This approach separates itself strategically from individual congregations seeking dismissal because of its corporate nature and separates itself from those on the left who advocate individual defiance of biblical and confessional provisions in the Constitution. We see its theological foundations lined out in the Second Helvetic Confession and the Westminster Confession. In fact, it is exactly the stand that our Reformed predecessors took in the face of the corruption in the Church of their day. We are compelled to do no less now.
Might this strategy invite disciplinary proceedings? It is possible. It certainly meant that for our Reformed predecessors. It may mean that for us. We are prepared to accept it if it comes. If it does not, we are prepared to hold fast to our confession and continue to confront the Church with her folly above and beyond this declaration. We view this as a first step. There can be no repentance without first recognition of sin. We hope that this will draw our denominational folly into the light and force us to deal with it post haste.
However, we are far from naïve. Repentance has never been our strong suit since the outset of the reunion in 1981 and arguably much further back than that. We have become experts at ignoring our sin, covering it over in legalese, and then holding our hands over our ears like the three year old who keeps repeating, “LALALALALA… I’m not listening!” as their parents attempt to get their attention. In fact, we expect the denominational hierarchy to ignore us as long as possible. We suspect this is why they have neither said nor done nothing yet. As of now we are nothing more than a few congregations petitioning our Presbytery to take a bold stand together. We will see what will happen if the Presbytery chooses to do so.
What did Advisory Opinion #22 really say?
For those who would like a full transcript of the AO, here it is: http://www.pcusa.org/constitutionalservices/ad-op/note22.htm. The opinion is a summary of the actions of the 218th. It is an accurate summary. We take the Stated Clerk and his staff at their word in this report.
Why talk about this subject in the first place? Since some of our critics have accused us of sloppy interpretation of the actions of the 218th, we enter this opinion as exhibit A of our accuracy which has been further confirmed by the denominational news services, commissioners from the Assembly, and subsequent interpretations from both renewal groups and those groups advocating liberal theological practice. We assert that our interpretation is based upon the very words of the Assembly itself, its spoken intentions, and the products of the Stated Clerk’s office since the GA which has only been confirmed by these other sources.
Grayde Parsons and his staff state clearly, just as we do, that the GA approved an overture to remove G-6.0106b from the BOO in its present form and replace it with revised language that has no reference to sexual practices as an ordination standard. The report sums up the net effect of this action in this way under Roman numeral I:
Until a majority of the presbyteries vote to approve that amendment, the standards contained in the current G-6.0106b remain among the standards to be applied in examinations for ordination and installation.
Of course, according to our polity, this is true. However, the sentence is deliberately evasive. This standard is only among those standards to be applied in examinations. Others may supersede it. And it can only be applied during examinations rather than the outcome of those examinations. Nowhere does the report say that this standard cannot be scrupled.
In fact, when one reads further, under Roman numeral III concerning the authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 one finds this:
We believe this modifies the 2008 GAPJC decision of Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh, in that the scrupling of either belief or practice is now allowed.
In fact, this is the very interpretation that Stated Clerks have been handing down to their Presbyteries nationwide. One can scruple belief. One can scruple practice. The AI has changed the meaning of the Constitution without changing the words and has thus turned it into a piece of paper with meaningless words.
In the last paragraph of this section, there is a paragraph that attempts to place the little Dutch boy’s finger back into the hole in the dike which says this:
The 218th General Assembly left in place the prohibition in Bush, which told ordaining bodies: “Restatements of the Book of Order, in whatever form they are adopted, are themselves an obstruction to the same standard of constitutional governance no less than attempts to depart from mandatory provisions.”
Some believe this sentence (oddly constructed as it is) means that candidates still cannot scruple mandatory provisions of the Constitution. If this is the case, it is a direct contradiction of the statement made just one paragraph before it. We believe this is a reference to the development of a litmus test or subscriptionist statement within a Presbytery which is still not allowed. Hence, any of those documents approved by some of our Presbyteries as expressions of the Presbytery’s collective belief and used to inform candidates of same are rendered effectively obsolete.
Grayde Parsons and Mark Tammen both affirmed that this is indeed what they meant and what the GA said at the recent leadership gathering for middle governing bodies. They are quoted in an article in the Presbyterian Outlook (http://www.pres-outlook.org/news-and-analysis/1/7962.html) where they said:
Tammen: “First, the Assembly deleted the specific prohibition against ordaining gay and lesbian persons [contained in authoritative interpretations dating back to 1978]. That’s gone. It leaves us with the whole constitution, and the responsibility to examine people’s lives. That is a change. It may not change the process in your presbytery. But it is a change. Taking away one explicit prohibition doesn’t change the process. It just means the process is more important in asking the follow-up questions.”
Parsons: “In some sense, ordination is very unique to the presbytery. But once you are ordained, it is for the whole church. But re-examination is required to move to another presbytery. Therefore, we have a hybrid system — ordination is for the whole church, but every governing body reserves the right to determine their own membership.”
We believe that what the Stated Clerk’s office has affirmed in this opinion is exactly what we have said from the beginning when we crafted this declaration and exactly what the GA actually did. The AI and subsequent reversal of court precedent have together overturned the plain meaning of the Constitution without ratification by the Presbyteries. It is not only bad theology. It is horrible process and a clear violation of our covenant. This is unique in our history. That is why the time for Status Confessionis is now.
How do we know that is what the opinion really said?
This question is related to the above because there are some institutionalists who are convinced that we have no idea what the GA has done. These institutionalists also argue that we will further have no idea what the GA did until we have a few court cases to interpret it for us. They say that we will have to be ready to launch court cases and challenges when other Presbyteries act on these (in their opinion) false interpretations of the Stated Clerk’s office. In other words, we need to wait until the lawyers tell us what the GA actually did and then we will know for sure what the net effect of this GA was.
Tongue in cheek references to Shakespeare aside, we will grant that while many of us were extremely upset after the passage of the TPUP recommendations that the many who decried it ended up being wrong because of the amendments to recommendation #5 on the floor. Subsequent court cases at the GAPJC proved that PUP actually strengthened the Constitution. Could we be wrong now like we were then?
There are a number of reasons why we believe we are correct about the 218th but none so critically important as this question right here. If we are indeed wrong about the actions of the 218th, then this declaration is out of bounds. Here are a number of reasons why we believe we are not:
1. The TPUP recommendations are no more including the amendment to recommendation #5 that made it a constitutional protection.
2. All cases supporting the plain reading of G-6.01016b have been overturned leaving no other precedent that the wording of the provision which can now be interpreted in any way a candidate or Presbytery desires.
3. The Stated Clerk’s office confirms our interpretation.
4. The courts will use, among other things, these new AI’s and this new AO to guide their decisions. They have no other precedent left upon which to base their decisions.
We believe that all of this is enough to settle the question but there is one last all-encompassing point that needs to be made. The question is, “Could we be wrong now like we were then?” We believe that question is now irrelevant. Even if the GA PJC makes a ruling that we would find favorable, the courts are now irrelevant in the land of the 218th. They can be overturned in an instant by a majority vote of any Assembly. While that has always been the case, no Assembly has been this brazen in its use and abuse of its powers. It has opened the doors for future Assemblies to walk down paths which God’s people would only tread on the way to exile. Because of this, we believe the time for Status Confessionis is now.
We need to wait until after the vote to amend the Constitution is finished. We will not know if we need this unless the vote fails.
The above is another institutionalist argument. The fear is that the only way we will know for sure is if the Constitution itself is changed or a court tells us differently. Surely we desire to work against any changes to the Constitution that will damage orthodoxy. We have no desire to see this recommendation pass and, as we have already vowed, will work against it.
The only problem with this argument is this: there is no need for the passage of the constitutional change for the liberals to get what they have desired all along. They have it already because of the actions of this Assembly. No doubt they will work to codify it into the Constitution through this means but they also know that they no longer need to. One can simply read their own publications to see this.
We have already taken a trip with Alice down the rabbit hole. That is our reality. Our denominational leaders have told us so. Our renewal leaders have told us so. Our liberal compatriots have told us so. Clearly everyone gets it. If we already live in that world now, then the time for Status Confessionis is now, not after another vote. Otherwise we fail as watchmen.
This declaration does not go far enough.
This is an argument from our conservative friends. We agree with them theologically and that is evident from the declaration itself. Attempting to lump us together with liberals or institutionalists are charges that will not stick. Hence we have been told that it has no teeth. They wish that it advocated separation. They accuse us of being too set in staying put because we do not advocate schism.
Our staying is rooted in our call. We would refer our friends to the recent writings of Mark Roberts on his blog (the series on “Why I am staying in the PC USA”). We are still called as witnesses to and within this denomination until God releases us from it. Some disagree with that assessment. They are entitled to their opinion.
The reality is that some of these folks are advocating wholesale schism right now. My question to my brother and sister conservatives is this: “How will schism happen under your plan?” We are Presbyterians. Everything we do has a process. Whatever a conservative Presbytery is going to do, it must respond at least by pointing out what the issues are first. That is what we do here.
Secondly, this document does take demonstrable action. If you still do not think so, do a Google search of the terms Status Confessionis and read more about it. It is no small thing.
Thirdly, some have said that because it has no teeth it will simply be ignored as the Confessing Church Movement has. The accusation is that it is just one more proclamation in a long string that have been ineffective. That may be true, but we have no idea what the subsequent actions of any governing body will be once we make it.
What we hear from our conservative friends is that they are not willing to endorse another statement. They are done with proclamations. They are ready and willing to act. We insist that this declaration is an act and a timely one. We further insist that any action beyond it would be premature without it.
In Christ
Pat and Rusty
An analysis of concerns and the practical outworkings of Advisory Opinion #22
During the past few weeks Rusty and I have been receiving and fielding a number of comments and concerns via e-mail and face to face conversations, mostly with members of Beaver-Butler Presbytery but also with voices around the broader PC USA denomination. We have received more questions. Some of them are repeats that we have addressed in this blog before. We have found that the Spirit is generating more refined answers to these questions and that the questions are evolving, as is the case with any good argument. This post is an attempt to address those old and new questions with sharper responses. We would like to thank all of those who responded because all of these responses aided in the development of our own understanding and further convinced us of the urgency for this declaration in this time in the life of our denomination.
The feedback we have received has been extensive. There is a broad group of people who understand what the declaration is all about and agree not only with its principles but also with its particulars. For that we rejoice. We have also received criticism (some of it constructive and some of it frothing with resentment but all of it helpful) from those on the left, those on the right, and even those in the middle (however that spectrum might be determined). Generally, concerns have fallen into three kinds of broad categories. Some of our conservative friends, with whom we share profound theological common ground, have accused us of being too nice or even cowardly. They say that the declaration has no teeth and that it should advocate for the departure of the whole Presbytery from the PC USA. Some of our institutionalist friends, who tend toward preservation of the institution at all costs, have accused us of hubris and of not being nice enough. They say we have created a mountain out of a molehill. Some of our friends on the left (and yes we do have friends on that end of the spectrum) have accused us of being knee-jerk crybabies who, after having won so many battles at GA or in Presbytery votes, are now ready to take our ball and go home after we lose one. In effect, they tell us that we were just getting interesting and are wondering why it is that we wish to react, in their estimation, with such a drastic measure.
In order to answer all of these concerns, we believe it is best to return to a basic understanding of what the GA did, what it did not do, and what we can expect as a result of their rulings. We believe the declaration answers these questions in its present form if one reads it in detail but obviously people are concerned on certain points so they bear further clarification/elaboration. This will require us to revisit some previous questions on this blog.
What is Status Confessionis?
A previous posting referenced an article on WRAC’s website concerning the definition of the term. It gives the historical background of the term and how it applies today. As we understand it, Status Confessionis is a simple declaration that the errant upper governing body, in this case the 218th GA, has left the Church constitutionally, confessionally, and biblically and, because of their profound errors, we will not go along nor can we be compelled to unless and until the upper governing reverses its folly and comes back to orthodoxy and orthopraxy. So far as we are aware, it is the only form of ecclesiastical protest that has any confessional and historic warrant within the Reformed tradition. This approach separates itself strategically from individual congregations seeking dismissal because of its corporate nature and separates itself from those on the left who advocate individual defiance of biblical and confessional provisions in the Constitution. We see its theological foundations lined out in the Second Helvetic Confession and the Westminster Confession. In fact, it is exactly the stand that our Reformed predecessors took in the face of the corruption in the Church of their day. We are compelled to do no less now.
Might this strategy invite disciplinary proceedings? It is possible. It certainly meant that for our Reformed predecessors. It may mean that for us. We are prepared to accept it if it comes. If it does not, we are prepared to hold fast to our confession and continue to confront the Church with her folly above and beyond this declaration. We view this as a first step. There can be no repentance without first recognition of sin. We hope that this will draw our denominational folly into the light and force us to deal with it post haste.
However, we are far from naïve. Repentance has never been our strong suit since the outset of the reunion in 1981 and arguably much further back than that. We have become experts at ignoring our sin, covering it over in legalese, and then holding our hands over our ears like the three year old who keeps repeating, “LALALALALA… I’m not listening!” as their parents attempt to get their attention. In fact, we expect the denominational hierarchy to ignore us as long as possible. We suspect this is why they have neither said nor done nothing yet. As of now we are nothing more than a few congregations petitioning our Presbytery to take a bold stand together. We will see what will happen if the Presbytery chooses to do so.
What did Advisory Opinion #22 really say?
For those who would like a full transcript of the AO, here it is: http://www.pcusa.org/constitutionalservices/ad-op/note22.htm. The opinion is a summary of the actions of the 218th. It is an accurate summary. We take the Stated Clerk and his staff at their word in this report.
Why talk about this subject in the first place? Since some of our critics have accused us of sloppy interpretation of the actions of the 218th, we enter this opinion as exhibit A of our accuracy which has been further confirmed by the denominational news services, commissioners from the Assembly, and subsequent interpretations from both renewal groups and those groups advocating liberal theological practice. We assert that our interpretation is based upon the very words of the Assembly itself, its spoken intentions, and the products of the Stated Clerk’s office since the GA which has only been confirmed by these other sources.
Grayde Parsons and his staff state clearly, just as we do, that the GA approved an overture to remove G-6.0106b from the BOO in its present form and replace it with revised language that has no reference to sexual practices as an ordination standard. The report sums up the net effect of this action in this way under Roman numeral I:
Until a majority of the presbyteries vote to approve that amendment, the standards contained in the current G-6.0106b remain among the standards to be applied in examinations for ordination and installation.
Of course, according to our polity, this is true. However, the sentence is deliberately evasive. This standard is only among those standards to be applied in examinations. Others may supersede it. And it can only be applied during examinations rather than the outcome of those examinations. Nowhere does the report say that this standard cannot be scrupled.
In fact, when one reads further, under Roman numeral III concerning the authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 one finds this:
We believe this modifies the 2008 GAPJC decision of Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh, in that the scrupling of either belief or practice is now allowed.
In fact, this is the very interpretation that Stated Clerks have been handing down to their Presbyteries nationwide. One can scruple belief. One can scruple practice. The AI has changed the meaning of the Constitution without changing the words and has thus turned it into a piece of paper with meaningless words.
In the last paragraph of this section, there is a paragraph that attempts to place the little Dutch boy’s finger back into the hole in the dike which says this:
The 218th General Assembly left in place the prohibition in Bush, which told ordaining bodies: “Restatements of the Book of Order, in whatever form they are adopted, are themselves an obstruction to the same standard of constitutional governance no less than attempts to depart from mandatory provisions.”
Some believe this sentence (oddly constructed as it is) means that candidates still cannot scruple mandatory provisions of the Constitution. If this is the case, it is a direct contradiction of the statement made just one paragraph before it. We believe this is a reference to the development of a litmus test or subscriptionist statement within a Presbytery which is still not allowed. Hence, any of those documents approved by some of our Presbyteries as expressions of the Presbytery’s collective belief and used to inform candidates of same are rendered effectively obsolete.
Grayde Parsons and Mark Tammen both affirmed that this is indeed what they meant and what the GA said at the recent leadership gathering for middle governing bodies. They are quoted in an article in the Presbyterian Outlook (http://www.pres-outlook.org/news-and-analysis/1/7962.html) where they said:
Tammen: “First, the Assembly deleted the specific prohibition against ordaining gay and lesbian persons [contained in authoritative interpretations dating back to 1978]. That’s gone. It leaves us with the whole constitution, and the responsibility to examine people’s lives. That is a change. It may not change the process in your presbytery. But it is a change. Taking away one explicit prohibition doesn’t change the process. It just means the process is more important in asking the follow-up questions.”
Parsons: “In some sense, ordination is very unique to the presbytery. But once you are ordained, it is for the whole church. But re-examination is required to move to another presbytery. Therefore, we have a hybrid system — ordination is for the whole church, but every governing body reserves the right to determine their own membership.”
We believe that what the Stated Clerk’s office has affirmed in this opinion is exactly what we have said from the beginning when we crafted this declaration and exactly what the GA actually did. The AI and subsequent reversal of court precedent have together overturned the plain meaning of the Constitution without ratification by the Presbyteries. It is not only bad theology. It is horrible process and a clear violation of our covenant. This is unique in our history. That is why the time for Status Confessionis is now.
How do we know that is what the opinion really said?
This question is related to the above because there are some institutionalists who are convinced that we have no idea what the GA has done. These institutionalists also argue that we will further have no idea what the GA did until we have a few court cases to interpret it for us. They say that we will have to be ready to launch court cases and challenges when other Presbyteries act on these (in their opinion) false interpretations of the Stated Clerk’s office. In other words, we need to wait until the lawyers tell us what the GA actually did and then we will know for sure what the net effect of this GA was.
Tongue in cheek references to Shakespeare aside, we will grant that while many of us were extremely upset after the passage of the TPUP recommendations that the many who decried it ended up being wrong because of the amendments to recommendation #5 on the floor. Subsequent court cases at the GAPJC proved that PUP actually strengthened the Constitution. Could we be wrong now like we were then?
There are a number of reasons why we believe we are correct about the 218th but none so critically important as this question right here. If we are indeed wrong about the actions of the 218th, then this declaration is out of bounds. Here are a number of reasons why we believe we are not:
1. The TPUP recommendations are no more including the amendment to recommendation #5 that made it a constitutional protection.
2. All cases supporting the plain reading of G-6.01016b have been overturned leaving no other precedent that the wording of the provision which can now be interpreted in any way a candidate or Presbytery desires.
3. The Stated Clerk’s office confirms our interpretation.
4. The courts will use, among other things, these new AI’s and this new AO to guide their decisions. They have no other precedent left upon which to base their decisions.
We believe that all of this is enough to settle the question but there is one last all-encompassing point that needs to be made. The question is, “Could we be wrong now like we were then?” We believe that question is now irrelevant. Even if the GA PJC makes a ruling that we would find favorable, the courts are now irrelevant in the land of the 218th. They can be overturned in an instant by a majority vote of any Assembly. While that has always been the case, no Assembly has been this brazen in its use and abuse of its powers. It has opened the doors for future Assemblies to walk down paths which God’s people would only tread on the way to exile. Because of this, we believe the time for Status Confessionis is now.
We need to wait until after the vote to amend the Constitution is finished. We will not know if we need this unless the vote fails.
The above is another institutionalist argument. The fear is that the only way we will know for sure is if the Constitution itself is changed or a court tells us differently. Surely we desire to work against any changes to the Constitution that will damage orthodoxy. We have no desire to see this recommendation pass and, as we have already vowed, will work against it.
The only problem with this argument is this: there is no need for the passage of the constitutional change for the liberals to get what they have desired all along. They have it already because of the actions of this Assembly. No doubt they will work to codify it into the Constitution through this means but they also know that they no longer need to. One can simply read their own publications to see this.
We have already taken a trip with Alice down the rabbit hole. That is our reality. Our denominational leaders have told us so. Our renewal leaders have told us so. Our liberal compatriots have told us so. Clearly everyone gets it. If we already live in that world now, then the time for Status Confessionis is now, not after another vote. Otherwise we fail as watchmen.
This declaration does not go far enough.
This is an argument from our conservative friends. We agree with them theologically and that is evident from the declaration itself. Attempting to lump us together with liberals or institutionalists are charges that will not stick. Hence we have been told that it has no teeth. They wish that it advocated separation. They accuse us of being too set in staying put because we do not advocate schism.
Our staying is rooted in our call. We would refer our friends to the recent writings of Mark Roberts on his blog (the series on “Why I am staying in the PC USA”). We are still called as witnesses to and within this denomination until God releases us from it. Some disagree with that assessment. They are entitled to their opinion.
The reality is that some of these folks are advocating wholesale schism right now. My question to my brother and sister conservatives is this: “How will schism happen under your plan?” We are Presbyterians. Everything we do has a process. Whatever a conservative Presbytery is going to do, it must respond at least by pointing out what the issues are first. That is what we do here.
Secondly, this document does take demonstrable action. If you still do not think so, do a Google search of the terms Status Confessionis and read more about it. It is no small thing.
Thirdly, some have said that because it has no teeth it will simply be ignored as the Confessing Church Movement has. The accusation is that it is just one more proclamation in a long string that have been ineffective. That may be true, but we have no idea what the subsequent actions of any governing body will be once we make it.
What we hear from our conservative friends is that they are not willing to endorse another statement. They are done with proclamations. They are ready and willing to act. We insist that this declaration is an act and a timely one. We further insist that any action beyond it would be premature without it.
In Christ
Pat and Rusty
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
FAQ-Round Two
Our friend Sam from a neighboring Presbytery raised some very helpful questions that we believe would benefit everyone in this discussion.
1. This is an awfully risky tactic. Is it too risky and bordering on irresponsible?
The "tactic" may be somewhat risky, as you observe. But, then life in the Gospel is inherently risky. Now, the reason we feel the risk is so fully justified is because of the level of constitutional crisis in which we now find ourselves. The risk in temporal terms may be grave, but if we continue to "box as though at the air" the risk in eternal terms is graver still. The denomination IS indeed in a constitutional crisis as we now move to using Authoritative Interpretations to legislate and the legislative process to overthrow our own ecclesiastical judiciary. The other observation that must be made is that while our approach may be risky, the damage already caused to our covenanted connectionalism are far riskier to our collective health than anything we have proposed.
2. Is the timing right for this kind of extreme tactic?
Let us grant for the moment that the tactic is extreme. That no one has tried such a thing yet in the PC USA indicates that this is the case. We will not argue that point. So let us then focus on the real question… is the timing right for this tactic? Of course this is debatable but here are the reasons why we believe this kind of proclamation could not have been made before this Assembly and needs to be made now.
Certainly there were upsetting, even disastrous, outcomes from previous Assemblies. The Re-imagining God conference was an issue that received great attention but the Assembly seemed to correct itself on that score with the report Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ. Several recommendations were made at previous Assemblies to remove previous AI’s but failed. Several recommendations to change our Constitution were never ratified by the Presbyteries. All previous Assemblies had one thing in common: while we might have disagreed with some of the recommendations coming from the Assembly, we could at least say that they had followed proper process and that their recommendations were subject to the ratification of the Presbyteries while honoring our judicial system or were innocuous enough to be endurable. This is one reason why our declaration would have been inappropriate before the 218th General Assembly.
Certainly the 217th Assembly was full of concerning outcomes. The reception of the Trinity paper was particularly disturbing to us but it was merely received and not adopted (certainly a careful political maneuver but a distinction that we were forced to grant them). Thus, while heresy appeared to be tolerated by some, it was not formally embraced by an act of the whole Assembly. The passage of the PUP Task Force recommendations concerned us greatly. However, during the two years of “lag time” between Assemblies, we found that the amendments on the floor to the PUP recommendations, particularly recommendation #5, actually made for judicial cases that supported the plain reading of the Constitution and the significance of the Trinity paper seemed to be waning. Frankly we were more concerned about the FOG task force and its potentially damaging effects on our communion than anything else at this Assembly, thinking that the constitutional, interpretive and judicial support given to our current covenant would prevail. It turns out that this trust was ill-placed. The 218th General Assembly was a completely different Assembly than any one Assembly prior to it, which is why this declaration has become necessary now.
The difference in the 218th Assembly is not only its lack of tactical and diplomatic savvy, not only its abandonment of responsible judicial review, not only its disregard for the plain meaning of Scripture, the Confessions, and the Constitution, but also its profound indifference toward our agreed upon process. It inaugurated wholesale changes to our Constitution by Authoritative Interpretation without Presbytery ratification. It formally embraced heresy by passing an overture whose recommendations were based on heterodoxy (regarding Muslims and Jews) and by approving a study guide for an errant paper that was never adopted by our denomination. It further demonstrated this slide into separation from the Church Universal by recommending a change to our confessions that amounts to a change in the Scriptures themselves. As if that weren’t enough, it then removed all supporting precedent for the plain meaning of our Constitution. While we could argue about whether or not previous Assemblies crossed the line from Christianity into something else or whether or not previous Assemblies may have conducted themselves decently and in order, in our opinion, the evidence is clear with this Assembly. The 218th Assembly made decisions that violated our covenant concerning process and violated our covenant with the Church Universal by affirming heresy. In our estimation, this is the first time our General Assembly has demonstrably and brazenly crossed this line on both counts. Previous Assemblies have simply toyed with the idea while coming dangerously close to doing so, carefully covering their tracks in political legalese. The 218th took unprecedented actions, above and beyond all previous Assemblies. This is another reason why this declaration must be made now whereas it would not have been appropriate before.
Because we believe these to be clear violations of our covenant, whatever trust we may have had left is broken. What we are also finding out since we wrote this document and released it is that we are not alone in that assessment. Because the Assembly saw fit to disregard our judicial system and was supported by the immediate affirmation of its actions by the Office of our Stated Clerk with Advisory Opinion #22, whatever trust we may have had of judicial cases ruling properly according to the plain reading of the Constitution is pragmatically irrelevant. It no longer matters what how our courts rule on any cases that may come their way. There is no longer any precedent for their decisions because the cases that set these precedents have all been overturned. The Assembly has now learned that it can overturn any case it wishes with or without grounds or even without considering written minority reports and it has demonstrated the will to do so. The Constitution itself has been changed by fiat with complete disregard for Godly discernment and process. Further, we now are forced to live in this kind of environment until the next Assembly, a state which we believe we have rightly referred to as constitutional anarchy. Everyone may now do whatever is right in his/her own eyes with no consequence for there are no longer legitimate judicial, constitutional, confessional, or even biblical means to pursue discipline thanks to the actions of this Assembly. That is why this declaration is appropriate now and must be made immediately. Otherwise we become guilty of the very sin we decry by failing to act.
Because of the nature of these sweeping changes in process and belief, what we have is a horribly broken system. This Assembly was brazen in its defiance of our covenant. In the face of this kind of determined, calculated, intentional sin, we can only stand firm, name the sin, and insist that this is not how we will conduct ourselves even if our highest level governing body insists that we do so. With judicial review now irrelevant, it is incumbent upon us to act immediately. Correcting the actions of this Assembly has become almost constitutionally impossible because of the extremity of its actions. The horse has escaped the barn and is already down the street. While we do not claim perfection in any other form than the righteousness of Jesus Christ applied to His people, we refuse to embrace clearly sinful behavior whether foisted upon us by the world or by our own General Assembly. This is why this declaration MUST be made now. If we fail to do so, we risk failing in the Church’s role as watchman and tying a millstone around our own necks by leading the least of these astray. In our estimation, we must act definitively and graciously and we must act now.
3. Are the Presbyters aware of the potential consequences? Do we even know what the consequences are?
This is an excellent question. The potential consequences of this action are truly steep; among them could be the filing of ecclesiastical judicial charges against those who subscribe to the Declaration. Such a move against us would come because we have already announced our intention not to submit to either corrective counsel from a higher governing body or to cease what we are doing. The potential danger to individual sessions and or presbyteries could come in the form of Administrative Commissions appointed by presbyteries and synods of jurisdiction. Theoretically, these bodies would be free to assume original jurisdiction and to depose sessions or presbyteries they deem as having stepped outside of the boundaries of the Book of Order.
Some presbyters may be unaware of the full range of possible consequences, but I suspect that most of them who have read the document in its entirety at least suspect strongly that this is one of the possible end-scenarios that must be considered. Beyond that, all of us are more likely to see, believe and anticipate this course of action because of the action taken by the Episcopal Church House of Bishops against Pittsburgh's now-defrocked Bishop Robert Duncan. Duncan made a similar stand against the Episcopal Church (or more accurately, his diocese threatened to do so -- the vote on that matter will take place on Sat., 4 October), and the House of Bishops declared by majority vote that he had stepped outside of their communion and violated the discipline by even suggesting that the Diocese of Pittsburgh make a theological stand and consider re-aligning itself with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.
Our polity is definitely not the same as that of the Episcopal Church, but our means of addressing conflict have been similar for several decades and the concerns raised and enumerated are the same.
4. Are the potential gains worth the consequences?
While Rusty is writing on potential consequences, I know we have discussed them at length. We understand that in a declaration of this magnitude, a clear declaration of Status Confessionis, the consequences are potentially great. If we are going to weigh any gains against these consequences, we had best be clear on both sides of the ledger. What are the potential gains from such a declaration?
This declaration clearly aligns us with the Church Universal. It makes it clear to our brothers and sisters throughout the world that our allegiance is to Christ and His Church worldwide and that we will not suffer departure from her for the sake of compromise here in the US.
This declaration clearly defines a place for us to faithfully stand without leaving the PC USA. When the world has so crept into the life of the Church that one is now asked by the Church to sin, faithful living requires a clear stand in the midst of the storm. This provides a place for us to stand together faithfully while the storm rages around us. It also allows us to be true to our ordination vows in a time when to keep those vows is to deny them at the same time.
This declaration provides clarity of conscience. Our conscience is captive to the Word of God. We say that in this declaration and can live that out through the boundaries we draw in it. Without it, we would be forced to compromise on essential matters of the Christian faith either actively or passively.
This declaration can unify the Church in spite of this denomination’s current state of division brought upon us by the extreme actions of the 218th General Assembly. We would love to see the Church unify behind this declaration and pray for this end.
This declaration sends a clearer message than any thus far of the Church’s necessary commitment to her covenant and theology. As the violations of trust have escalated, so have the calls to account within our communion. All of us knew that someone would eventually have to say these things in one form or another. We believe this to be the most faithful form and we will not equivocate.
We believe these benefits to outweigh the potential consequences. We affirm the following:
“But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-- the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.”
Philippians 3:7-14 (NIV)
If this means what it appears to mean, nothing compares to the greatness of Christ, His truth, and His fellowship. As we see it, the greatest risk is to value anything else as greater than the privilege of standing with Him. If this means that we get a small glimpse of what the fellowship of His sufferings is all about because of our stand with Him, then praise God for having made us like Him (even in a small way) in His death. We rejoice to make this stand.
1. This is an awfully risky tactic. Is it too risky and bordering on irresponsible?
The "tactic" may be somewhat risky, as you observe. But, then life in the Gospel is inherently risky. Now, the reason we feel the risk is so fully justified is because of the level of constitutional crisis in which we now find ourselves. The risk in temporal terms may be grave, but if we continue to "box as though at the air" the risk in eternal terms is graver still. The denomination IS indeed in a constitutional crisis as we now move to using Authoritative Interpretations to legislate and the legislative process to overthrow our own ecclesiastical judiciary. The other observation that must be made is that while our approach may be risky, the damage already caused to our covenanted connectionalism are far riskier to our collective health than anything we have proposed.
2. Is the timing right for this kind of extreme tactic?
Let us grant for the moment that the tactic is extreme. That no one has tried such a thing yet in the PC USA indicates that this is the case. We will not argue that point. So let us then focus on the real question… is the timing right for this tactic? Of course this is debatable but here are the reasons why we believe this kind of proclamation could not have been made before this Assembly and needs to be made now.
Certainly there were upsetting, even disastrous, outcomes from previous Assemblies. The Re-imagining God conference was an issue that received great attention but the Assembly seemed to correct itself on that score with the report Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ. Several recommendations were made at previous Assemblies to remove previous AI’s but failed. Several recommendations to change our Constitution were never ratified by the Presbyteries. All previous Assemblies had one thing in common: while we might have disagreed with some of the recommendations coming from the Assembly, we could at least say that they had followed proper process and that their recommendations were subject to the ratification of the Presbyteries while honoring our judicial system or were innocuous enough to be endurable. This is one reason why our declaration would have been inappropriate before the 218th General Assembly.
Certainly the 217th Assembly was full of concerning outcomes. The reception of the Trinity paper was particularly disturbing to us but it was merely received and not adopted (certainly a careful political maneuver but a distinction that we were forced to grant them). Thus, while heresy appeared to be tolerated by some, it was not formally embraced by an act of the whole Assembly. The passage of the PUP Task Force recommendations concerned us greatly. However, during the two years of “lag time” between Assemblies, we found that the amendments on the floor to the PUP recommendations, particularly recommendation #5, actually made for judicial cases that supported the plain reading of the Constitution and the significance of the Trinity paper seemed to be waning. Frankly we were more concerned about the FOG task force and its potentially damaging effects on our communion than anything else at this Assembly, thinking that the constitutional, interpretive and judicial support given to our current covenant would prevail. It turns out that this trust was ill-placed. The 218th General Assembly was a completely different Assembly than any one Assembly prior to it, which is why this declaration has become necessary now.
The difference in the 218th Assembly is not only its lack of tactical and diplomatic savvy, not only its abandonment of responsible judicial review, not only its disregard for the plain meaning of Scripture, the Confessions, and the Constitution, but also its profound indifference toward our agreed upon process. It inaugurated wholesale changes to our Constitution by Authoritative Interpretation without Presbytery ratification. It formally embraced heresy by passing an overture whose recommendations were based on heterodoxy (regarding Muslims and Jews) and by approving a study guide for an errant paper that was never adopted by our denomination. It further demonstrated this slide into separation from the Church Universal by recommending a change to our confessions that amounts to a change in the Scriptures themselves. As if that weren’t enough, it then removed all supporting precedent for the plain meaning of our Constitution. While we could argue about whether or not previous Assemblies crossed the line from Christianity into something else or whether or not previous Assemblies may have conducted themselves decently and in order, in our opinion, the evidence is clear with this Assembly. The 218th Assembly made decisions that violated our covenant concerning process and violated our covenant with the Church Universal by affirming heresy. In our estimation, this is the first time our General Assembly has demonstrably and brazenly crossed this line on both counts. Previous Assemblies have simply toyed with the idea while coming dangerously close to doing so, carefully covering their tracks in political legalese. The 218th took unprecedented actions, above and beyond all previous Assemblies. This is another reason why this declaration must be made now whereas it would not have been appropriate before.
Because we believe these to be clear violations of our covenant, whatever trust we may have had left is broken. What we are also finding out since we wrote this document and released it is that we are not alone in that assessment. Because the Assembly saw fit to disregard our judicial system and was supported by the immediate affirmation of its actions by the Office of our Stated Clerk with Advisory Opinion #22, whatever trust we may have had of judicial cases ruling properly according to the plain reading of the Constitution is pragmatically irrelevant. It no longer matters what how our courts rule on any cases that may come their way. There is no longer any precedent for their decisions because the cases that set these precedents have all been overturned. The Assembly has now learned that it can overturn any case it wishes with or without grounds or even without considering written minority reports and it has demonstrated the will to do so. The Constitution itself has been changed by fiat with complete disregard for Godly discernment and process. Further, we now are forced to live in this kind of environment until the next Assembly, a state which we believe we have rightly referred to as constitutional anarchy. Everyone may now do whatever is right in his/her own eyes with no consequence for there are no longer legitimate judicial, constitutional, confessional, or even biblical means to pursue discipline thanks to the actions of this Assembly. That is why this declaration is appropriate now and must be made immediately. Otherwise we become guilty of the very sin we decry by failing to act.
Because of the nature of these sweeping changes in process and belief, what we have is a horribly broken system. This Assembly was brazen in its defiance of our covenant. In the face of this kind of determined, calculated, intentional sin, we can only stand firm, name the sin, and insist that this is not how we will conduct ourselves even if our highest level governing body insists that we do so. With judicial review now irrelevant, it is incumbent upon us to act immediately. Correcting the actions of this Assembly has become almost constitutionally impossible because of the extremity of its actions. The horse has escaped the barn and is already down the street. While we do not claim perfection in any other form than the righteousness of Jesus Christ applied to His people, we refuse to embrace clearly sinful behavior whether foisted upon us by the world or by our own General Assembly. This is why this declaration MUST be made now. If we fail to do so, we risk failing in the Church’s role as watchman and tying a millstone around our own necks by leading the least of these astray. In our estimation, we must act definitively and graciously and we must act now.
3. Are the Presbyters aware of the potential consequences? Do we even know what the consequences are?
This is an excellent question. The potential consequences of this action are truly steep; among them could be the filing of ecclesiastical judicial charges against those who subscribe to the Declaration. Such a move against us would come because we have already announced our intention not to submit to either corrective counsel from a higher governing body or to cease what we are doing. The potential danger to individual sessions and or presbyteries could come in the form of Administrative Commissions appointed by presbyteries and synods of jurisdiction. Theoretically, these bodies would be free to assume original jurisdiction and to depose sessions or presbyteries they deem as having stepped outside of the boundaries of the Book of Order.
Some presbyters may be unaware of the full range of possible consequences, but I suspect that most of them who have read the document in its entirety at least suspect strongly that this is one of the possible end-scenarios that must be considered. Beyond that, all of us are more likely to see, believe and anticipate this course of action because of the action taken by the Episcopal Church House of Bishops against Pittsburgh's now-defrocked Bishop Robert Duncan. Duncan made a similar stand against the Episcopal Church (or more accurately, his diocese threatened to do so -- the vote on that matter will take place on Sat., 4 October), and the House of Bishops declared by majority vote that he had stepped outside of their communion and violated the discipline by even suggesting that the Diocese of Pittsburgh make a theological stand and consider re-aligning itself with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.
Our polity is definitely not the same as that of the Episcopal Church, but our means of addressing conflict have been similar for several decades and the concerns raised and enumerated are the same.
4. Are the potential gains worth the consequences?
While Rusty is writing on potential consequences, I know we have discussed them at length. We understand that in a declaration of this magnitude, a clear declaration of Status Confessionis, the consequences are potentially great. If we are going to weigh any gains against these consequences, we had best be clear on both sides of the ledger. What are the potential gains from such a declaration?
This declaration clearly aligns us with the Church Universal. It makes it clear to our brothers and sisters throughout the world that our allegiance is to Christ and His Church worldwide and that we will not suffer departure from her for the sake of compromise here in the US.
This declaration clearly defines a place for us to faithfully stand without leaving the PC USA. When the world has so crept into the life of the Church that one is now asked by the Church to sin, faithful living requires a clear stand in the midst of the storm. This provides a place for us to stand together faithfully while the storm rages around us. It also allows us to be true to our ordination vows in a time when to keep those vows is to deny them at the same time.
This declaration provides clarity of conscience. Our conscience is captive to the Word of God. We say that in this declaration and can live that out through the boundaries we draw in it. Without it, we would be forced to compromise on essential matters of the Christian faith either actively or passively.
This declaration can unify the Church in spite of this denomination’s current state of division brought upon us by the extreme actions of the 218th General Assembly. We would love to see the Church unify behind this declaration and pray for this end.
This declaration sends a clearer message than any thus far of the Church’s necessary commitment to her covenant and theology. As the violations of trust have escalated, so have the calls to account within our communion. All of us knew that someone would eventually have to say these things in one form or another. We believe this to be the most faithful form and we will not equivocate.
We believe these benefits to outweigh the potential consequences. We affirm the following:
“But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-- the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.”
Philippians 3:7-14 (NIV)
If this means what it appears to mean, nothing compares to the greatness of Christ, His truth, and His fellowship. As we see it, the greatest risk is to value anything else as greater than the privilege of standing with Him. If this means that we get a small glimpse of what the fellowship of His sufferings is all about because of our stand with Him, then praise God for having made us like Him (even in a small way) in His death. We rejoice to make this stand.
An Important Exchange
The conversation below was undertaken as commentary to the Declaration but we considered it important enough to give it is own post. Have a nice read!
Anonymous said...
Some questions about the "Open Declaration" have been rolling around in my mind for a while and I woke up with it on my mind, so I decided it was time to ask them. I presume this will be a typical majority rules vote. But this seems to be an all or nothing document, right? If it passes, I guess my question is, how will this "Open Declaration" affect the minority who vote against it? It could be that 49% of pastors disagree and yet lose the vote; do you expect an exodus of pastors who do not want to be a part of BBP anymore? And for sessions that do not want to sign on to this--what is their course of action? Would they align themselves with another presbytery?If it passes and some sort of repercussions are handed down from the General Assembly, they will be handed down on the entire presbytery, right--even those who may have voted against it? How would the presbytery deal with that? I look forward to your response to these questions! Thanks
September 30, 2008 10:57 PM
Toby Brown said...
Anon,That is a great question. You have pointed out one of the flaws (?) of our system--majority rules.As I'm sure you are well aware, we could switch the question you pose onto a variety of other topics other than this Declaration: Local Option, Gay Ordination, Abortion, Per Capita, Property, etc. ANY issue can be foisted upon the minority in a simple majority vote of a GA, Synod, Presbytery or Session. In fact, our own history shows that denominations can split in just this way--as we did in 1861 as just one example.Majority rules is our rule, our blessing and our challenge.The alternative?I have yet to hear of a better one, but I know the flaws of our system, as I've lost many votes in my time!I will enjoy reading the responses of Pat and Rusty.
October 1, 2008 7:16 AM
Pat McElroy said...
Dear Anonymous,
As Toby said, you raise some important issues. Clearly these are concerns that need to be addressed. Rusty and I have discussed them and we have some thoughts to offer.You write: “I presume this will be a typical majority rules vote. But this seems to be an all or nothing document, right? If it passes, I guess my question is, how will this "Open Declaration" affect the minority who vote against it?” Your assumption of this being a “typical majority rules vote” is our assumption as well. Your assumption of this being an “all or nothing document”… we might contest your wording there. Regardless, we understand what you mean by that. It is a demonstrably clear statement where there is little room for compromise. That’s intentional. We understand that we are asking the Presbytery to make that statement and that some will be uncomfortable with its clarity and the potential consequences.
You ask: “How will this affect the minority who vote against it?” That is anyone’s guess as the answer depends upon how the denomination chooses to respond to our call. We have no idea, though we can list some possible outcomes, of what that response might be. As you rightly point out though, since we are asking that this be an action of the Presbytery, any consequences would be levied against the Presbytery as a whole. The Presbytery will have to prayerfully discern if the situation in which we find ourselves as a result of the 218th General Assembly is as grave as we believe it to be and if the benefits of addressing the issues by this means outweigh the potential consequences. We believe it to be so. Whether the Presbytery agrees or not remains to be seen. So, in one sense, the answer to your question is that the consequences will be the same for all of us, whether we voted in the majority or the minority, regardless of how large that minority may be. That is our polity.
You raise the possibility of the minority vote being as large as 49%. That is certainly possible though we hope and believe that the declaration has broader support in Beaver-Butler Presbytery than that. As you rightly point out, a possible significant minority raises some concerns. We would argue that even a small minority vote would raise some concerns. We have no intention of “pushing people out” nor do we expect an exodus. We will certainly not lead one. In fact, an exodus is exactly what we are trying to prevent by making this statement in the first place. It is our hope that through this proclamation the Church will recognize its folly and return to its Shepherd en masse. Our hope is to galvanize and unite the Church, not divide it.
That said, we recognize that with a statement of this magnitude there is potential for division in the body. We believe the potential benefit of unity in our confession outweighs the fear of the possibility of division. We hope for and stand in our ordination vows to promote the peace, unity and purity of the Church. We believe this to be the best means of restoring all three.
Perhaps the best way forward with your question, since we are advocating constitutional adherence, is to ask another question: What options does a minister or Session have in the case of disagreement with a majority vote? There is the constitutional option of registering formal dissent with the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery while still submitting to the will of the majority. If there is formal action from a higher governing body, perhaps that higher governing body would take into account the difference between the majority congregations, Sessions, and Pastors who favored this stand and could choose to embrace the minority who voted against it. We could speculate about what that might entail or how it might develop. Ultimately though, that is in the hands of the upper governing bodies as to whether or not they act and how they choose to do so. Regardless, the possibility remains that those who disagree could formally register themselves as having done so with the Stated Clerk and potentially avoid certain consequences.
Hopes, intentions, and aspirations aside, we do recognize that there is a possibility of division within the Presbytery. In an extreme case, where division is initiated by an upper governing body in a formal disciplinary action, it is our estimation that those who voted in the affirmative would be the group “facing the music” (so to speak), while those opposed would likely be labeled a “remnant” by the upper governing body and be reconstituted as “the Beaver-Butler Presbytery”. We have seen this scenario play out the Episcopal Church with the diocese of San Joaquin and will likely soon see in the diocese of Pittsburgh. The possibility also exists that the minority could be folded into a neighboring Presbytery. We believe the potential for the latter would increase as the size of the minority decreases. Obviously we hope for a better outcome than this but we recognize that this is a political possibility. In fact, we would call this a “worst case scenario”.
Let us be clear on this score though: we will NOT initiate division. We will stand. It has never been our intent to initiate division and we will not do so. If an upper governing body chooses to initiate division, we have little control over their actions. All we can do is stand as we have said we would do.
Just how bad is this potential “worst case scenario”? Certainly it would profoundly sadden us and others on both sides to have to endure this kind of an outcome. In our estimation, it is worth the risk and might actually be better for both sides of this argument if the upper governing bodies prove to be that aggressively divisive. Negotiations would likely commence over property in this scenario. We could speculate as to what form those negotiations might take but that would be fruitless at this point. What we do know is this: our stand is upon Christ Jesus for His Gospel. Anything else that we might count as gain is actually loss compared to this. We believe this worst case scenario to be a small price to pay compared to the rich blessings of standing for the truth of the Gospel in our time and place. We are convinced that this is a matter of eternal health for the body. This is our primary concern. We love people on both sides of this issue and want to see them healthy and secure. At the same time, we hope to avoid divisive scenarios and we will advocate against them. Regardless, God’s will be done and may He strengthen us for whatever may come.
In Christ
Pat
Anonymous said...
Some questions about the "Open Declaration" have been rolling around in my mind for a while and I woke up with it on my mind, so I decided it was time to ask them. I presume this will be a typical majority rules vote. But this seems to be an all or nothing document, right? If it passes, I guess my question is, how will this "Open Declaration" affect the minority who vote against it? It could be that 49% of pastors disagree and yet lose the vote; do you expect an exodus of pastors who do not want to be a part of BBP anymore? And for sessions that do not want to sign on to this--what is their course of action? Would they align themselves with another presbytery?If it passes and some sort of repercussions are handed down from the General Assembly, they will be handed down on the entire presbytery, right--even those who may have voted against it? How would the presbytery deal with that? I look forward to your response to these questions! Thanks
September 30, 2008 10:57 PM
Toby Brown said...
Anon,That is a great question. You have pointed out one of the flaws (?) of our system--majority rules.As I'm sure you are well aware, we could switch the question you pose onto a variety of other topics other than this Declaration: Local Option, Gay Ordination, Abortion, Per Capita, Property, etc. ANY issue can be foisted upon the minority in a simple majority vote of a GA, Synod, Presbytery or Session. In fact, our own history shows that denominations can split in just this way--as we did in 1861 as just one example.Majority rules is our rule, our blessing and our challenge.The alternative?I have yet to hear of a better one, but I know the flaws of our system, as I've lost many votes in my time!I will enjoy reading the responses of Pat and Rusty.
October 1, 2008 7:16 AM
Pat McElroy said...
Dear Anonymous,
As Toby said, you raise some important issues. Clearly these are concerns that need to be addressed. Rusty and I have discussed them and we have some thoughts to offer.You write: “I presume this will be a typical majority rules vote. But this seems to be an all or nothing document, right? If it passes, I guess my question is, how will this "Open Declaration" affect the minority who vote against it?” Your assumption of this being a “typical majority rules vote” is our assumption as well. Your assumption of this being an “all or nothing document”… we might contest your wording there. Regardless, we understand what you mean by that. It is a demonstrably clear statement where there is little room for compromise. That’s intentional. We understand that we are asking the Presbytery to make that statement and that some will be uncomfortable with its clarity and the potential consequences.
You ask: “How will this affect the minority who vote against it?” That is anyone’s guess as the answer depends upon how the denomination chooses to respond to our call. We have no idea, though we can list some possible outcomes, of what that response might be. As you rightly point out though, since we are asking that this be an action of the Presbytery, any consequences would be levied against the Presbytery as a whole. The Presbytery will have to prayerfully discern if the situation in which we find ourselves as a result of the 218th General Assembly is as grave as we believe it to be and if the benefits of addressing the issues by this means outweigh the potential consequences. We believe it to be so. Whether the Presbytery agrees or not remains to be seen. So, in one sense, the answer to your question is that the consequences will be the same for all of us, whether we voted in the majority or the minority, regardless of how large that minority may be. That is our polity.
You raise the possibility of the minority vote being as large as 49%. That is certainly possible though we hope and believe that the declaration has broader support in Beaver-Butler Presbytery than that. As you rightly point out, a possible significant minority raises some concerns. We would argue that even a small minority vote would raise some concerns. We have no intention of “pushing people out” nor do we expect an exodus. We will certainly not lead one. In fact, an exodus is exactly what we are trying to prevent by making this statement in the first place. It is our hope that through this proclamation the Church will recognize its folly and return to its Shepherd en masse. Our hope is to galvanize and unite the Church, not divide it.
That said, we recognize that with a statement of this magnitude there is potential for division in the body. We believe the potential benefit of unity in our confession outweighs the fear of the possibility of division. We hope for and stand in our ordination vows to promote the peace, unity and purity of the Church. We believe this to be the best means of restoring all three.
Perhaps the best way forward with your question, since we are advocating constitutional adherence, is to ask another question: What options does a minister or Session have in the case of disagreement with a majority vote? There is the constitutional option of registering formal dissent with the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery while still submitting to the will of the majority. If there is formal action from a higher governing body, perhaps that higher governing body would take into account the difference between the majority congregations, Sessions, and Pastors who favored this stand and could choose to embrace the minority who voted against it. We could speculate about what that might entail or how it might develop. Ultimately though, that is in the hands of the upper governing bodies as to whether or not they act and how they choose to do so. Regardless, the possibility remains that those who disagree could formally register themselves as having done so with the Stated Clerk and potentially avoid certain consequences.
Hopes, intentions, and aspirations aside, we do recognize that there is a possibility of division within the Presbytery. In an extreme case, where division is initiated by an upper governing body in a formal disciplinary action, it is our estimation that those who voted in the affirmative would be the group “facing the music” (so to speak), while those opposed would likely be labeled a “remnant” by the upper governing body and be reconstituted as “the Beaver-Butler Presbytery”. We have seen this scenario play out the Episcopal Church with the diocese of San Joaquin and will likely soon see in the diocese of Pittsburgh. The possibility also exists that the minority could be folded into a neighboring Presbytery. We believe the potential for the latter would increase as the size of the minority decreases. Obviously we hope for a better outcome than this but we recognize that this is a political possibility. In fact, we would call this a “worst case scenario”.
Let us be clear on this score though: we will NOT initiate division. We will stand. It has never been our intent to initiate division and we will not do so. If an upper governing body chooses to initiate division, we have little control over their actions. All we can do is stand as we have said we would do.
Just how bad is this potential “worst case scenario”? Certainly it would profoundly sadden us and others on both sides to have to endure this kind of an outcome. In our estimation, it is worth the risk and might actually be better for both sides of this argument if the upper governing bodies prove to be that aggressively divisive. Negotiations would likely commence over property in this scenario. We could speculate as to what form those negotiations might take but that would be fruitless at this point. What we do know is this: our stand is upon Christ Jesus for His Gospel. Anything else that we might count as gain is actually loss compared to this. We believe this worst case scenario to be a small price to pay compared to the rich blessings of standing for the truth of the Gospel in our time and place. We are convinced that this is a matter of eternal health for the body. This is our primary concern. We love people on both sides of this issue and want to see them healthy and secure. At the same time, we hope to avoid divisive scenarios and we will advocate against them. Regardless, God’s will be done and may He strengthen us for whatever may come.
In Christ
Pat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
