Presbyterian Outlook: Younger elders

Younger elders:

"... Why not ask every presbytery to elect one commissioner under the age of 27? Such a commissioner would have been nominated and elected by his/her own congregation and entrusted with leadership in that particular church. He would have been examined by the Session and been ordained into office. She would have voted on church school curriculum, on receiving members, and sorting through the costs of building maintenance. After serving at the GA, this young adult commissioner would give an account to that same local body of leaders. ..."

The Book of Order (G-14.0221) provides that: "... Every congregation shall elect men and women from among its active members, giving fair representation to persons of all ages and of all racial ethnic backgrounds and to persons with disabilities who are members of that congregation, to the office of elder and to the office of deacon (if used in the congregation). ..."

Many congregations, including the one where I worship, elect a high school student for a one year term on Session. This allows them an opportunity to be a part of church leadership without burdening them with a three-year commitment. The idea of ordaining youth and young adults has been around for some time. I was ordained an elder at the age of 21 in the United Presbyterian Church in the USA, and there was at least one congregation that had ordained a high school student in my presbytery. My son, who is a sophomore in high school, began a one year term on Session in early January, so he too is getting a taste of Church leadership.

One of my minor peeves is the way people tend to label them as "youth elders". There is no such office in the PC(USA). These young adults when elected, ordained, and installed to active service on a Session are elders on the same level as any who serve in a like capacity. And, like any other elder, they are elders for life.

There is not complete agreement as to whether this is a good idea or not. One substantive difficulty some have is whether a young person is ready to take on the role of spiritual leader. I have to admit that when I was ordained an elder at age 21, I was not ready to be a spiritual leader. But I had to come to grips with the concept and thus I began a process of self-examination, prayer, study, and service. Now I am of an age where I am an "elder" in the chronological sense, I have presbyopia. and my hair and beard are grey -- I am truly a presbyter. And I still know that even though I am better equipped spiritually than I was 35 years ago, I still am striving to be worthy of the calling of elder. My son is now finding his own way, and I wish him the best.

Jack Haberer's suggestion for each presbytery to send an elder under 27 to General Assembly seems to me to be a solution looking for a problem. There is currently no bar to younger elders serving as GA commissioners, and while I have no idea how many such there are, I suspect there are some commissioners each year who would also qualify as a Youth Advisory Delegate.

I can understand the issues with YADs, but they do have voice and vote in the committees, and often hold the balance of power when the issues are closely divided. Many observers have felt that as a group they are vulnerable to manipulation by special interest groups. There is no question that they are a heavily-lobbied group at General Assembly. But I am not convinced that eliminating the YADs and requiring that each presbytery send one commissioner from that age group is a viable solution. I assume that this would entail significantly increasing the number of commissioners -- otherwise smaller presbyteries would be locked into sending one minister and one youth to represent the presbytery.

One factor that complicates things was our move to biennial General Assemblies. While it was, in general, a good idea, it made it even less likely that any given Presbyterian elder would have the opportunity to serve as a GA commissioner. Short of doubling the number of commissioners, it is hard to see that situation improving. Increasing the number of commissioners could also have the effect of erasing the savings resulting from the move to biennial assemblies.

I see no reason why a younger elder should not serve as a commissioner to General Assembly, but making it a mandate would create problems of its own.

For a thought-provoking essay on how the PC(USA) might go about rebuilding itself, including dealing with the issue of youth representation, check out Beau Weston's Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment, which is made available through the Office of Theology and Worship of the PC(USA). Beau and I see things in a similar way, though I differ with him in some details of youth involvement.

The End of the PCUSA? Revisited

The End of the PCUSA? Revisited:

"I just became aware of a couple of major changes in exegesis exams of the Presbyterian Church (USA). I want to offer some comments on these changes. This may seem like a detour from my series on The End of the PCUSA? Revisited, but, in fact, it is not. The changes in the grading of the exegesis exam illustrate why the PC(USA) is struggling to stay alive."

This is part 15 of a lengthy series written by Mark Roberts, a Presbyterian minister currently serving in Texas. While he has many misgivings about the future of the PC(USA), he is certainly no rabble-rouser or demagogue. His opinions are expressed well and he documents his assertions.

In this piece, he notes a recent statement by the Presbyteries' Cooperative Committee on Examinations regarding a change in the way the exegesis exam will be evaluated. A pdf of these changes can be obtained here.

The upshot seems to be that (1) demonstrating a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is not a requirement to pass the examination (although students are given the opportunity to demonstrate such knowledge) and (2) students will be asked to offer a "faithful interpretation" of the passage rather than the "principal meaning".

This seems a little odd to me, especially given the Presbyterian Church's long emphasis on an educated clergy. Is there no longer a "principal meaning" to be had? I cannot read Hebrew or Greek, but I have grown to expect that Presbyterian ministers can and do read the original languages of Scripture. At the very least, they should be able check translations and offer some the nuances of how the original words expressed things. I don't expect every sermon to cover all the possible shades of meaning or to go into an arcane discussion of why a particular word was used instead of another, more common word. But I do find it useful to know that some of Jesus' illustrations involved clever word plays, or that Psalm 119 is written in the form of an acrostic.

I guess the bottom line is that as Reformed Christians, we are firmly anchored in the Word of God, and we believe that "The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duties God requires of man" (Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 3). This presupposes that Scripture has meaning, which for the most part, can be objectively understood. If we do away with objective exegesis, then we risk losing our ability to call ourselves Reformed, or worse, reformable.

Big Win for Va.'s Breakaway Anglican Parishes in Property Fight | Christianity Today

Big Win for Va.'s Breakaway Anglican Parishes in Property Fight | Christianity Today:

"A Virginia judge Thursday upheld key arguments of 11 Anglican churches seeking to keep their property and assets after leaving the Episcopal Church and its Virginia Diocese. The Anglican District of Virginia (ADV), a coalition comprised of defendants in the case, called the ruling an 'initial victory' in one of the biggest church property battles in recent history."

I spent my school years from 6th through 8th grade, and again from the last couple months of 11th grade through graduation in Falls Church, VA. In seventh grade our Virginia History class went on a series of Saturday field trips to some of the local historical sites, and among them were The Falls Church and Truro Parish. George Washington was a vestryman at the Falls Church, which is located a couple blocks from the Falls Church Presbyterian Church where my parents were members, and where I was first received into communicant membership.

This ruling is based on Virginia law which uses "neutral principles" in determining questions of ownership of church property, which I assume means that the denominational hierarchy is not automatically presumed to be the owner of the property. In addition, an 1867 law governing divisions of property in a church split says the faction with the majority of votes is entitled to the property.

It's pretty sad when things get to this point, but I expect we will see more and more of this, especially where there is such a wide gulf between the denominational hierarchy and the people in the congregations.

Presbyweb: Moderator Candidates Answer "What is the Gospel"

Presbyweb has been a valuable resource for years, providing news and commentary about not only the PC(USA), but the Church in the world. Its offerings are available by subscription (and the user still gets to pay what he or she feels the service is worth). A thirty day trial subscription is available.

In a welcome departure from the lists of questions provided by various interest groups to all the moderatorial candidates for the upcoming General Assembly, Hans Cornelder asks one simple question: "What is the Gospel?". The moderator has limited power, does not define policy, does not administer the bureaucracy of our denomination, but IS the "public face" of the PC(USA) for many people. He or she must be able to clearly define why we have come together as a body calling ourselves the Presbyterian Church (USA).

In its April 1, 2008 edition, Presbyweb listed the responses of all four candidates for Moderator of the 218th General Assembly:

Carl Mazza
Bruce Reyes-Chow
Roger Shoemaker
Bill Teng

What I read opened a window on the candidates' minds. I have formed an opinion, but I will not express it here. The commissioners who will make the decision need to be able to deliberate and pray without pressure.

I hope to hear more such questions being asked, and I thank Hans Cornelder and Presbyweb for setting a standard.

Some Thoughts on the Proposed Form of Government

As I was looking over the recommendations for changes in the Form of Government section of our Book of Order, I was struck initially by this paragraph:

3.0202 Governed by Presbyters

This church shall be governed by presbyters, that is, ruling and teaching elders, also called elders and ministers of the Word and Sacrament. Ruling elders are so named not because they ‘lord it over’ the congregation (Matt. 20:25), but because they are chosen by the congregation to discern and measure its fidelity to the Word of God, and to strengthen and nurture its faith and life. Teaching elders, also called ministers of the Word and Sacrament, shall be committed in all their work to equipping the people of God for their ministry and witness.

I was ordained as a Ruling Elder in the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and this is a welcome recognition of the equal nature of what the PC(USA) calls "Elders" and "Ministers of Word and Sacrament". It seemed to me at the time that, by dropping the ruling and teaching designations, it created an implicit hierarchy of presbyters in the church where there had been not only parity of numbers in the various councils from Session to General Assembly, but parity in the value of each office. It's good to see the names reflect that.

As I read further, I saw a significant change in how members are defined, and thus how numbers are reported:

G-1.04 Categories of Membership

The membership of a congregation of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) includes baptized members, active members, and affiliate members.

The category of inactive member is not on this list. In addition, there seems to be no clear path to remove a member who has become inactive or moved away, and further has not responded to contacts and counseling. This is not a punitive sort of thing, nor is it excommunication (impossible, of course, in a denomination that has open communion).

I should make it clear that people whose health prevents them from active participation are not "inactive" to my way of thinking. In the same way, family members who have moved away from the area, but choose to maintain their membership in their parent's congregation are certainly not "inactive", even if they come only once a year for a visit. When the Congregational Care Committee (or whatever it is called in other congregations) tries to make contact, they can often determine what the situation is. Sometimes it is an easy call. Other times, when multiple attempts to contact the person fail, placing them on the inactive roll serves to "hold their place" pending a clarification of their intentions.

I should note that the new proposal does make it incumbent on the Session to review annually the active roll and counsel with "those who have neglected the responsibilities of membership". It just does not provide a framework for dealing with those who choose not to respond over a period of years.

One practical effect of not having a separate inactive category is to retain members on the active roll who neither participate in the life of the congregation nor provide financial support, yet are counted when it comes time to transmit the per capita assessments up the denominational ladder.

All-in-all, though, simplifying the Book of Order is a worthy goal, and what I have read so far is a good rough draft. I think the section on membership needs a lot more work.

More About the PJC Decisions

Bob Davis of Presbyblog has summarized yesterday's decisions of the PC(USA) Permanent Judicial Commission and provided useful links to the relevant PJC decisions.

"The decisions have been issued:

Buescher, et al v. Olympia Presbytery (218-09)

Bush, et al v. Pittsburgh Presbytery (218-10)

1st Presbyterian Church, Washington, et al v. Washington Presbytery (218-15)

Also released and relevant is Advisory Opinion #21 from the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly. ..."

Personally, I wish they would write those decisions in plain English rather than lawyer-speak, but at least there is an advisory opinion that provides the official version of events.

Bob Davis points out that decisions of the PJC are authoritative interpretations themselves.

Probably the most significant outcome of these three decisions of the PJC is that Constitutional requirements for ordination cannot be changed by an "authoritative interpretation" of a particular General Assembly. In fact, the PJC seems to have upheld the AI arising from the Peace, Unity, and Purity report and makes it clear that it did not set aside any requirements for ordination, nor did it provide a loophole that would permit such requirements to be ignored.

Another related aspect of all this was the rejection of enumerated lists of essentials that many presbyteries had published following GA217. The PJC considered these and other restatements of what the Book of Order already says to be redundant, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. The presbyteries in question had a reasonable belief that the authoritative interpretation would be used to do an end run around the Book of Order. Subsequent events bore this out. By issuing the three rulings together, the PJC upheld the Book of Order, thus demonstrating to the presbyteries that the various restatements of ordination requirements were unnecessary.

I hope that some trust is being restored in our denomination. These decisions are a positive development.

Austin Seminary, Mission Presbytery ask: What must we believe?

Presbyterian Outlook: Austin Seminary, Mission Presbytery ask: What must we believe?:

"A new issue has popped up in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Mission Presbytery recently: should a person have to confess to the belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in order to become a member of a church?

The issue arose when Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, joined St. Andrew’s Church in Austin, Texas, in 2005, and later declared in a published article that he does not believe in Jesus, or God, at all. When Mission Presbytery’s Committee on Ministry researched whether or not there are questions in the Book of Order on joining the membership of a church, they found such questions — at least as required in an explicit formula — are not there."

I will grant that a specific list of questions to be asked is not present, but the Book of Order IS explicit about what it takes to be a member of a Presbyterian Church:

"The incarnation of God in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ gives to the church not only its mission but also its understanding of membership. One becomes an active member of the church through faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and acceptance of his Lordship in all of life. Baptism and a public profession of faith in Jesus as Lord are the visible signs of entrance into the active membership of the church."

Book of Order G-5.0101a

I don't see how this statement can be parsed in any way that permits an avowed atheist to gain membership to a Presbyterian church.

The last I heard of this particular embarrassment was that a higher judicatory directed the session of St. Andrews to drop Jensen from the active roll and leave him on the baptized member roll, since he was baptized as a child. I have not heard whether this order has been implemented or not.

People I know rather well had attended St. Andrews in Austin and figured out quickly that this was not where they were at, so they sought another congregation. In their years in Austin they learned that this particular church and minister had a reputation for such behavior.

Mission Presbytery (where this all transpired) has proposed an amendment to the Book of Order that would add questions to be asked of members:

Who is your Lord and Savior?
Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.

Trusting in the gracious mercy of God, do you turn from the ways of sin and renounce evil and its power in the world?
I do, by God’s grace.

Will you be Christ’s faithful disciple, obeying his Word and showing his love?
I will, with God’s help.

Will you be a faithful member of this congregation, share in its worship and ministry through your prayers and gifts, your study and service, and so fulfill your calling to be a disciple of Jesus Christ?
I will, with God’s help.

Many congregations, including my own, already ask similar questions. They seem to be reasonable implementations of the requirements for membership as specified in G-5.0101a, and serve to underscore the the fact that membership is for the entire Church, much as ordination is for the whole Church.

In the my congregation, the first question (Who is your Lord and Savior?) is also asked of parents presenting their children for baptism, and it may be the only question asked of Presbyterians where a complete sentence is called for. The constitutional questions for ordination require a simple "I do" or "I will" as a response.

Blowing Things Out Of Proportion

On Saturday August 4th, an email written by Joan Gray (217th GA Moderator) was published in Presbyweb. I do not know the provenance of this email, but I suspect it was directed to a particular group of people, and not necessarily for the whole PC(USA). By Monday a flurry of letters to the editor appeared, nearly all of them condemning Moderator Gray's words and some of the Presbyterian blogs have also weighed in. Tuesday showed several more letters and they were more balanced.

The email begins:

"I feel led to address an opinion I have heard from several people in several places in my traveling around the country. The statement is usually made in response to my assertion that everyone who believes in Jesus as their savior is a brother or sister in Christ to every other believer. It goes something like this: “Gay and lesbian people are not my brothers and sisters; they can’t be Christians,” or “Gays and lesbians would not be allowed to join my (Presbyterian) church.” I am deeply grieved when I hear this opinion, and I believe it is not only wrong but deeply pernicious heresy for the following reasons...."

Please follow this link to read the full text of the email. If you are not a subscriber to Presbyweb, you can obtain a 30 day free trial, following which you can decide whether it is worth your while to subscribe. I recommend it highly.

Joan Gray then makes an excellent case, in my opinion, for demonstrating the perniciousness of the attitudes addressed in the first paragraph.

NOTE WELL -- her email addressed the PC(USA)'s requirements for membership, not ordination. All those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are (or should be) welcome in our fellowship. There are no arcane theological questions that members are required to answer. Ordination has a higher standard (as it should). Ordination is not an entitlement of membership. There are a number of constitutional questions, some relating to theology, some relating to polity, and they must all be answered in the affirmative with either "I do" or "I will". But for membership the only theological question that must be answered is "Who is your Lord and Savior?"

So what is this "pernicious heresy?" First of all, "pernicious" in modern usage suggests something that may not seem all that bad by itself, but undermines people, beliefs, or organizations. "Slippery slope", which Joan Gray also uses in her email, describes an effect of perniciousness.

In view of the fact that in our denomination, nothing unrelated to profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour can be used to bar one from membership in the PC(USA), any additional conditions placed on members is a pernicious eroding of our membership requirements, whether it is done by a session or, more commonly, by fellow members who deny Christian fellowship with those of whom they disapprove.

I have to admit that I was a little jarred by Joan Gray's email when I read it Saturday, and I remember thinking that this may unleash a lot of ugliness. I wish I could say I was wrong.... I do not know what prompted her to write this, but I can speculate. I have also heard comments similar to what she heard. They, too, are our fellow Christians, and we ought to able to love, fellowship with, and even remonstrate with them from time to time without blowing things out of proportion.

CRC lifts barrier to female ministers - mlive.com

CRC lifts barrier to female ministers - mlive.com:

"GRAND RAPIDS -- History came quietly to the Christian Reformed Church on Tuesday night, but progress remains to be made.

That was the feeling of longtime advocates of women's ordination who watched the CRC Synod remove the word 'male' from its requirements for church office.

After 37 years of back-and-forth struggle, delegates opened the way for women to become ministers in any of the CRC's 1,000-plus churches. If other proposed changes are approved as expected today, women also will be able to serve as delegates to the Synod for the first time. ..."

I saw this article linked yesterday in the Kruse Kronicle.

According to an article in today's Christian Post, women who are selected as delegates to Synod will be seated next year:

"... After debates broke out last year over the restriction of women from serving as synodical deputies (synod representatives) delegates at Synod 2007 – the eight-day meeting of the church's broadest assembly – decided to open for the first time the way for women to be delegates to next year's synod.

"Let’s take note, pause and reflect,” said Rev. Bruce Persenaire from Classis (regional assembly) Central California, according to CRC Communications. “We will now be seating women delegates."

The vote followed Tuesday's decision to remove the word "male" as a requirement for holding ecclesiastical office in the church and to allow women to be ordained as ministers, elders, deacons or ministry associates. In an effort to maintain unity in the church body by respecting the convictions of those who believe the Bible prohibits women serving as office bearers, synod representatives also decided to allow classes (regional assemblies) to set restrictions on women serving as delegates to classis meetings. ..."

One issue that this raises for the PC(USA) is that there have been few reformed denominations that recognize that both women and men are called to ministries in the Church. Many have therefore predicted that there would not be a mass exodus of Presbyterians as a result of real and imagined shortcomings of the PC(USA). This move by the Christian Reformed Church may have an effect on that dynamic.

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has had "local option" for a few years now, but it is generally noted that few congregations have exercised that option. I suspect that the PC(USA) congregations that have already been dismissed to the EPC have more than doubled the number of ordained women in that denomination.

The Christian Reformed Church seems to have adopted "local option" as well, so its effect on any exodus from the PC(USA) may be minimal. In any case this is a positive move and I wish the CRC well as they embark on this path.

Presbyterian Outlook: Ecclesiastical divorce

Ecclesiastical divorce:

"... You know how divorce happens. The aggrieved party looks back over recent history, shudders over the hurtful things the spouse has done, and remembers all the unrequited steps he or she took to try to bring reconciliation. The aggrieved party transitions from trying to save the marriage to building a compelling case to justify ending it.

In the process, the accused party reacts and does things that are really, really stupid, reinforcing the anger of the aggrieved. Soon each party can’t stand the sight of the other.

I’ve been participant in or immediate observer of a dozen congregational splits and denominational separations. Every one of them has followed that divorcing pattern.

We can do better.

Given the desire of some congregations to separate from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) these days, let us consider a few possible modi operandi.

The most critical thing we can do is to believe in one another’s intentions. ..."

Good point here. A lot more can be accomplished if people assume that their fellow Christians love the Church as much as they do.

It seems that the debate has been framed by both sides as an Armageddon-like conflict with good arrayed against evil -- if not in those words, it is implied by the respective sides' rhetoric and actions. Jack Haberer points out that it doesn't have to be that way. I hope that we all can take some time to handle these disputes -- and they are not trivial -- with more of a Christian outlook and mutual forbearance.

Who knows? If we begin the process in a pastoral way, instead of going immediately to adversarial actions, we might achieve some form of reconciliation. And if it is not possible, then we can at least part with each side asking God's blessing for their counterparts on the other side.

The Gruntled Center: A Picky Point About the Presbyterian Panel Report

The Gruntled Center: A Picky Point About the Presbyterian Panel Report:

"...The Stated Clerk, Cliff Kirkpatrick, is a friend and someone I respect. He wrote a generous forward to Leading from the Center. I disagree with his decision not to report the Panel results before the Assembly. But I respect that he made a principled decision. ..."

Beau Weston clarifies an impression many people had about the failure to release the May 2006 report of the Presbyterian Panel prior to the 217th General Assembly. While he disagrees with the decision, he is not as quick as many to assume sinister motives.

I have to admit that when I read Jack Marcum's memo late last spring regarding the withholding of the report, I was a bit put off. I realize the commissioners to GA had a lot on their plate, but having read the report, it seems that it could have provided much useful information.

I hope that the debate can be ratcheted down a notch or two with more people like Beau Weston adding their informed opinions. The Task Force Report on Peace, Purity, and Unity cannot, by itself, create peace, purity, and unity -- but most of what it says is not under debate. What IS under debate -- the limits of "scrupling" -- is being addressed at the Presbytery level (which is where it SHOULD be addressed).

San Diego Presbytery: Task Force on the Way Forward

San Diego Presbytery: Task Force on the Way Forward

"It is the conclusion of the Task Force on the Way Forward that the Presbytery of San Diego is divided and therefore polarized over some key theological issues. As a result we are unable to experience ecclesiastical unity. The advisory survey taken by commissioners at the Special Meeting of Presbytery on October 24, 2006 and the complexion of our recent presbytery meetings confirms our conclusion. As a result of this polarization, our ability to do mission and ministry together is greatly hampered. Often we spend more time arguing our respective positions than proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ. Much like Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:36-41, we seem to have reached an insurmountable impasse.

It is time to tell ourselves the truth and bring an end to this entrenched dispute. In our opinion, it is futile to keep arguing our respective cases, hoping to persuade our brothers and sisters in Christ to change their deeply held beliefs and values, while vehemently defending our own. We simply cannot continue in this state of sharp disagreement. We will either continue to fight among ourselves or we will move forward, but we cannot do both. We must find a way to break this destructive cycle and come to a place where mission and ministry take precedence over unproductive debate. We may need to find a way to commend one another to the grace of God so that we can pursue faithful and fruitful ministry options. We must find a common ground where we can work together to further God’s kingdom here on earth, or we must part company. Anything less will not bring glory to God or increase His kingdom here on earth.

Therefore, the Task Force on the Way Forward presents the following recommendations to the Presbytery of San Diego for immediate adoption and implementation. ..."

I have to say that when I first read this I had a deep feeling of disappointment -- but then I started to think about it. San Diego is one of the more conservative presbyteries, and, if memory serves, one of the first to clearly outline what it thought were the Essential Tenets and Reformed Distinctives of our our faith. Even though I am in accord with the general goals and many of the specific stands taken, I recognize that this presbytery (as well as nearly every other in the PC(USA)) is deeply divided on many issues. In far too many of these cases, denomination-wide, the majority prevails and fails to recognize the minority's deep feelings.

San Diego seems to be taking a path that few have chosen and that is to recognize the divisions and a way forward that allows all sides to function more as a church and less as bickering children. This report makes specific recommendation as to how to accomplish this, and it may be difficult to implement, but at least they are trying to avoid the trap of fighting to win every argument by majority vote, but doing nothing to heal the divisions.

Included in this report is the questionaire that was answered by 70 respondents. The answers show clearly the depth of division.

The Paul and Barnabas analogy is one that resonates with me. By finding a way to move forward separately, the work God calls us to perform can be done more effectively. The alternative is to remain paralyzed by our inability to agree. Our disputes seem petty compared with the needs around us, and as much as I abhor the idea of separation, it may lead to greater things for the Presbyterian Church. We need to all remember that the subject of Paul's and Barnabas' disagreement was Timothy. Paul was wrong to dismiss Timothy on the basis of a single failing, but see how the early Church was strengthened -- and see how Paul's and Timothy's relationship developed several years later to the point where they were mutually supportive colleagues in ministry. If our denomination is truly presented with a "Paul and Barnabas" moment, let's not be too stubborn to recognize it.

Presbyterian Outlook: From confusion to clarity

Presbyterian Outlook: From confusion to clarity:
Presbyterian Outlook requires registration to read the full articles, but it is free.

by Jack Haberer

"...As a former member of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church (TTF), I have been distressed to see so many Presbyterian friends troubled, perplexed, and even angered by the actions taken by the 217th Birmingham General Assembly in response to the Task Force’s recommendations. ..."

Not much has truly changed with the passing of the PUP recommendations. Judicatories that previously chose to ignore constitutional provisions in making ordination decisions will continue to ignore the Book of Order when it finds its provisions inconvenient. Judicatories that carried out their responsibilities with integrity are free to continue to do so, and many have made it crystal clear that they intend to do so.

What has changed is that a practice has been brought back of permitting "scruples" to be declared and allowing the judicatory to determine whether such scruples place the candidate outside the "essential tenets" of the reformed faith. The Task Force failed to clarify what the essentials are, and we go on as before without any clear understanding of what they are, and without such clarification the job of promoting Peace, Purity, and Unity is going to be very difficult.

I am still willing to give it a fair chance, since the recommendations appeared to strengthen the judicial review of such decisions -- but not enough time has elapsed to see the effect of such reviews.

People seem to be divided in four groups when it comes to the Task Force on Peace, Purity, and Unity recommendations:

• Those who are in accord with the PUP recommendations.
• Those who are willing to give them a chance, but have some reservations.
• Those who are opposed to the recommendations based on a study of the issues.
• Those who never really intended to consider fairly the recommendations and are using it as a wedge issue to further their own agendas.

The preceding four categories do not account for all Presbyterians, and my gut feeling is that they do not even comprise a majority. We need to recognize that there are those who simply do not understand what is going on because it never really has been clearly or honestly explained by either the supporters or the detractors of the PUP report.

Jack Haberer has much personally invested in the PUP report and recommendations, and I respect his opinions, but the fact that there are so many people out there who are confused suggests very strongly that the Task Force needed to do a much better job of interpretation of their report to the membership.

"...Then again, we Presbyterians are pretty insistent that the sovereign God reigns. And given that God is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33), the people of God listening for the voice of God ought to be able to find their way through a season of confusion into greater clarity. This edition of The Presbyterian Outlook is dedicated to helping us all to listen better, to discern more clearly, and to follow our Lord more faithfully."

This injunction should be heeded by all sides, not only in this dispute, but in all disputes that prevent us from heeding our individual and corporate calling to follow Jesus Christ.

God is not the author of confusion; we are.

Streamlining the Book of Order

In my personal library I have a Presbyterian Hymnal published in 1843 by the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (a predecessor denomination of the PC(USA)). In addition to its 236 pages of metrical Psalms and its 679 hymns, there are 82 pages consisting of The Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church, The Directory for Worship, and The Shorter Catechism. The Westminster Confession is not included in this hymnal (which is 3 inches wide, 5 inches tall, and an inch and a half thick).

Without belaboring the obvious, the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, which today consists of Part One (The Book of Confessions) and Part Two (The Book of Order), has evolved from a succinct constitutional document to a sometimes bewildering smörgåsbord of confessions, ordinances, and rules to cover everything from proper representation on judicatories to which presbytery gets to examine and ordain a candidate for the ministry. Some have said the constitution has become a manual for operations. I tend to look at it as a progression from general principles to specific instances. However one looks at it, it has bloated to the point where its usefulness is diminished as elders and ministers try to determine what part of "shall" is essential or, dare I say it, what the meaning of "is" is.

In this environment the 217th General Assembly commissioned a task force to study how to streamline the Book of Order with the charge to develop a document that:

• Preserves the foundational polity of our church;
• Focuses on providing leadership for congregations as missional communities;
• Provides sufficient authority and flexibility to presbyteries to assist congregations in addressing cultural, economic, and societal challenges facing the church;
• Provides flexibility at all levels of the church;
• Is guided by the first four principles from the Report of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church, and
• Preserves the wording of G-8.0200 and G-6.0106b in their current form. (For the precise wording of the task force’s charge, please see Item 05-11.)

To this end, the Task Force has issued a draft chapter that address the Form of Government and a draft chapter on the Foundations of Polity. In addition, there is an outline of the remainder of the Form of Government section, which is pretty skeletal at this time.

I have read over these documents, but have not done any in-depth analysis. I really am not a polity wonk (unlike Moderator Joan Gray, who wrote the book). My initial impressions are that it is definitely simpler that what it proposes to replace, yet there are themes and phrasing that hearken back to the 1843 Form of Government.

Whether this endeavor will succeed in streamlining our polity without sacrificing what it means to be Presbyterian and Reformed remains to be seen, but I look forward seeing how this takes shape in the coming year or so.

The Classical Presbyterian on Property Issues in the PC(USA)

Toby Brown (aka The Classical Presbyterian) has summarized his feelings regarding the property issue that is causing much anxiety in the Presbyterian Church (USA). He makes some excellent points (ten in all) and three of them are quoted below:

1. Churches who wish to depart from the denomination should attempt to do so by engaging in conversation with their presbytery. You've been in this group this long, so why not make the attempt to make your case before your fellow presbyters? And so what if they 'preempt' you and take you to court? Would you rather be the victim or the aggressor? (See the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew.)

9. The presbyteries must also admit that summary secular legal actions and threats will revoke their spiritual authority over the congregation. You can't serve two masters. Either make a commitment to be the church and love like Jesus, or just admit that you are a financial entity.

10. Show each other grace and love. This should go without saying, but we all know that all too often it doesn't. Shame on us.

The others are pretty good points, too, but you should go over there and read them, and while you are there, read some of his other postings. Toby Brown is a "classical" Presbyterian, and not all are going to agree with him, but he certainly makes his case clearly and compellingly.

More on the Essentials

The first three questions that ordained officers in the PC(USA) must answer are as follows:

• Do you trust in Jesus Christ your Savior, acknowledge him Lord of all and Head of the Church, and through him believe in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
• Do you accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God’s Word to you?
• Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God?

n.b. These questions, since the reunion, are asked of "those preparing to be ordained or installed" (G-14.0207 emphasis mine).

As I indicated in a prior posting, since these are constitutionally required to be answered in the affirmative, a reasonable person can assume that they are essential. This assumption relies on the integrity of the examination process and the honesty of the person being ordained or installed. With regard to the third question, for all intents the PC(USA) allows a wink and a nudge to cloud the honesty of the answer, through the various public pronouncements that, since the "essentials" are not enumerated in the Book of Order, then they don't really exist.

I disagree. Common sense and the plain meaning of the English language shows us a number of essentials that ARE enumerated in the Book of Order. Jack B. Rogers, a former moderator of General Assembly, wrote a book shortly following the reunion called Presbyterian Creeds -- A Guide to the Book of Confessions (Westminster John Knox 1985, revised 1991). This book provides much historical information about the various creeds and what it was they were providing to the Church. Rogers also speaks of the essentials of the Reformed Faith, and identifies ten that are identified in the Book of Order (G-2.0000-2.0400):

1. The mystery of the Trinity
2. The incarnation of Jesus Christ
3. Justification by grace through faith
4. Scripture as the final authority
5. God's Sovereignty
6. God's choosing of people for salvation and service (election)
7. The covenant life of the Church, ordering itself according to the Word of God
8. A faithful stewardship of God's creation
9. The sin of idolatry, which makes anything created ultimate, rather than worshipping only the Creator
10. The necessity of obedience to the Word of God, which directs us to work for justice in the transformation of society

While G-2.0000-2.0400 does not list this with bullets, they are in the text. According to Rogers, "These ten doctrines are the result of prayer, thought, and experience within a living tradition of reflecting on the Word of God."

The first two are shared with the Church Universal. The second two are distinctive to the Reformation, and the remaining six are characteristic of the Reformed Church, but not unique to it.

Rogers does not provide a comprehensive list, nor does he delve very deeply into the "mystery of the trinity" and other theological issues -- but it is a start, and demonstrates far more intellectual integrity than the glib statement that there are no essentials.

Sessions need to provide a meaningful orientation for newly-elected elders as well as elders who are called again to active service. This orientation should consist of a study of the Scriptural basis for elders as well as an introduction to the confessions and the Book of Order. Roger's book could be useful here. Another book that could be quite useful is Presbyterian Polity for Church Officers, by the current General Assembly Moderator Joan Gray.

Speaking as an elder who was ordained in 1974 by the United Presbyterian Church in the USA, I was not well-prepared to take on the office of ruling elder. It really wasn't until a subsequent installation in the early 1990's that I began to think about just what it was I was agreeing to. On my own, I read Scripture, the Book of Confessions, and the Book of Order, prayed, and did a lot of thinking to the point where I felt that I could answer all the questions with an honest "I Do" or "I Will". I feel this has made me more open to God's call in my life, and it also encourages me to continue learning and studying.

What is Essential?

Disclaimer: I am not a theologian, nor do I have any special training in Christian Education or Church Polity. I read Scripture, the Book of Order, and the Book of Confessions on a regular basis, and occasionally I vote in Presbytery. What follows are my own opinions shaped by my reading and people with whom I have spoken.

There has been much discussion of what constitutes the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith, with people dividing into two divergent camps: Those who feel that there ARE essential tenets and those who don't.

Those who believe there ARE essential tenets that can be identified will find them in Scripture and the Book of Confessions.

The prevailing "official" attitude seems to be that since there isn't a section in the Book of Order labeled "Essential Tenets", that we are free to come up with our own list; a doctrinal cafeteria, if you will.

As Beau Weston has pointed out in his book Leading From the Center, 1967 was the year the Presbyterian Church went from one doctrinal statement (the Westminster Confession and Catachisms) to a Book of Confessions, not all of which emphasized the same points. As a result, even those who look to the Book of Confessions for guidance as to what Scripture "leads us to believe and do" have an often bewildering set of confessional choices to wade through.

Another, perhaps more basic issue is that Presbyterians are not particularly conversant with what the Book of Confessions actually has to say, and when they read some of the harsh views about Roman Catholics in the Scots Confession, or the condemnation of Anabaptists in the Second Helvetic Confession, they are astonished. These confessions, much more than Scripture, must be understood in light of what they were responding to, and we need to separate the theological understandings from the specific condemnations of things that were happening hundreds of years ago. Our denomination has not done well at teaching and interpreting the historic confessions. In fact, our denomination has not done well at teaching what it means to be Reformed.

Individual congregations have taken on this task, when it is done at all, and there are excellent books available that can help. Two in particular are Presbyterian Polity for Church Officers co-authored by our current General Assembly Moderator Joan Gray and Presbyterian Creeds -- A Guide to the Book of Confessions by a former moderator, Jack Rogers. In the latter volume, originally written around the time of the reunion, Jack Rogers identifies from the Book of Order a list of essential tenets and reformed distinctives. I will post something on those next week.

So -- What essential tenets can we identify, using the plain meaning of the English language and our common sense?

The first and foremost is found in the public profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior that all members must make (G-5.0100). In many congregations this takes the form of a question: "Who is your Lord and Savior", with the prescribed answer in the liturgy being "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior". This question is also asked of parents presenting their infants for baptism, and it is one of the few, if not the only question that calls for a complete sentence as its answer.

There are other questions asked of persons desiring to become active members, and they mostly relate to the duties incumbent on members.

The constitutional questions (G-14.0206) asked of all deacons and elders are 9 in number:

• Do you trust in Jesus Christ your Savior, acknowledge him Lord of all and Head of the Church, and through him believe in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
• Do you accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God’s Word to you?
• Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God?
• Will you fulfill your office in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and be continually guided by our confessions?
• Will you be governed by our church’s polity, and will you abide by its discipline? Will you be a friend among your colleagues in ministry, working with them, subject to the ordering of God’s Word and Spirit?
• Will you in your own life seek to follow the Lord Jesus Christ, love your neighbors, and work for the reconciliation of the world?
• Do you promise to further the peace, unity, and purity of the church?
• Will you seek to serve the people with energy, intelligence, imagination, and love?
• Will you be a faithful elder (deacon), watching over the people, providing for their worship, nurture, and service? Will you share in government and discipline, serving in governing bodies of the church, and in your ministry will you try to show the love and justice of Jesus Christ?

The questions for ministers are identical on the theological issues and similar on the polity issues.

Since all these questions must be answered with either "I do" or "I will", I think that a reasonable person can infer that they are essentials.

Granted, not all the ordination questions are theological in nature, but our polity is what makes us Presbyterian, and should be taken seriously.

My list of essentials thus far numbers ten -- and I haven't even cracked open the Book of Confessions or the Bible. At the risk of starting something, what else should be on this list? Am I being fair in counting these ten as "essentials"?

To me the denial of the existence of "Essential Tenets" is taking the path of least intellectual resistance -- and that is unworthy of the strong intellectual faith that Presbyterians have been known for over their 300 year history in America.