Response to Gene's Questions

[posted 1-20-04]

This is a response to Gene TeSelle's invitation for feedback posted on the Witherspoon Society web site. I would like to begin this by quoting three paragraphs Gene wrote and then responding as he has asked. He wrote:

"... If non-geographical presbyteries based on differing theological perspectives were to be set up, the polity question is whether presbyteries (and sessions, for that matter) can add doctrinal statements to those that are in the Constitution and require ordinands to pledge their support to these new formulations.

Such an approach may be permitted by one of John Witherspoon's principles of church order (G-1.0302): that every church, union, or association "is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ hath appointed." The Presbytery of San Diego cites this in adopting specific guidelines for examining inquirers and candidates.

I would like to know, from those who know the interpretations of the Book of Order better than I do, whether (or to what extent) presbyteries have the right to do this, in spite of the other principles that ordination is an act of the whole church and that only the Constitution is binding on the whole church.

My Response

I am a theological conservative who believes that since God has placed us all in one church, it is important to talk to one another, to be in fellowship with one another, and to wrestle together with issues facing the PCUSA. We may at some time see theological synods or presbyteries, but that is not where we are right now, and so we need to talk.

I want to begin by talking about boundaries. One of the things my wife and I noticed about raising our children was that in their younger years, they often challenged boundaries in a creative way. Most of us who are parents probably experienced something similar. If we said they needed to be home at 10 P.M., they argued for 10:30. If we said 10:30, they argued for 11. Wherever we located the boundaries, often the children seemed to detect a certain arbitrariness in them, and so the argument was never about whether there should be a boundary in the first place, but rather about whether the boundary was located in precisely the right place!

Similarly, I believe most Presbyterians agree we need some boundaries in our church. I will try to show that shortly. What we often disagree about is the particular location of the boundaries. This should lead to two thoughts: First of all, it is OK to discuss whether boundaries are located at the right place. But secondly, wherever we put the boundaries, some will argue that they should be looser, while others will argue that they should be tighter. What is important to note is that such arguments are an inevitable part of boundary-setting. They are inevitable in a church which has decided to have boundaries, and only a church without boundaries would not have such arguments.

Now in response to one of Gene's questions, I am sure that in assessing the theology of those who would be their members, sessions and presbyteries cannot add doctrinal statements which would purport to be on the level of our Confessions or Book of Order. That much is clear. The far trickier question is whether and to what extent governing bodies may, either orally or in writing, offer their interpretation of the meaning of our Constitution. For example may they say how they interpret the term "essential tenets" used in our ordination/installation/commissioning vows, or may they say how they interpret what it means to be "Trinitarian"? I personally am convinced that governing bodies may do these things. Let me say more using these two areas of constitutional interpretation (Trinity and essential tenets) simply as examples for discussion.

In the third ordination/installation vow for elders, deacons, and ministers of Word and Sacraments, officers promise to receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith. In personal letters to me in response to a question about what these essentials are, two successive GA stated clerks, James Andrews and Clifton Kirkpatrick, have interpreted the GA decision about the "five fundamentals" in the mid twenties, as well as subsequent GA statements, to mean that the essential tenets referred to in the third ordination vow are determined by governing bodies as they examine persons for ordination and not by the GA. In other words, a presbytery (in the cases of ministers) or a session (in the case of elders and deacons) could determine, during examination prior to ordination or installation, whether the person being received seemed in his or her theology to be fulfilling the intent of the third ordination/installation vow that they receive and adopt the "essential tenets of the Reformed faith." Moreover, according to G-6.0108 (b), the governing body in which an officer serves may - even later on - determine that he or she has "departed from the essentials of Reformed faith and polity." The fact that, happily, governing bodies do not often make the determination that a person does not receive or adopt the essential tenets or has departed from them does not negate their right to do so. It simply means that most governing bodies arguably fulfill this duty responsibly and judiciously, recognizing, as Gene said, that we have quite a bit of theological diversity in the PCUSA, but that there are still boundaries.

What all of this probably means is that in the absence of some statement at the national level of what is essential to Reformed faith, presbyteries and sessions must be responsible for making these determinations. Of course that is a two-edged sword, as Gene suggests because presbyteries may differ in the judgments and decisions that they make.

Nevertheless, to continue with our essential tenets example, the GA has given some guidance as to what the essential tenets of the Reformed faith are. While rejecting in 1996 an overture from the Presbytery of New Covenant which would have made the beliefs in Chapter II of the Form of Government, "the Church and its Confessions," the essentials tenets, the Assembly did commend Chapter II to persons wishing to discover what these tenets are!

But this is not the end of the complexity: Let me give an example of how, even if just one essential were defined at a national level, there would still be leeway of interpretation at the local level. Chapter II of the Form of Government says an important Christian belief is the "mystery of the triune God." I believe that in almost any presbytery, a minister who announced they were not Trinitarian would not be accepted. But what about a person who insists they are Trinitarian, but seems to some in the presbytery not really to believe in the Trinity? Just for fun (and to help us understand the issues) imagine with me three hypothetical ministers with three different views of "trinity." The first person refers to the Trinity as "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer," but is also willing, at times, to use the traditional language, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," (especially in baptism where such language is mandated by the Book of Order.) My hunch is that in very many presbyteries this person will be accepted after presbytery's examination, but perhaps in a few presbyteries they might not. A decision by a presbytery not to receive someone who used gender-free trinitarian language might be successfully appealed, but in the end, the Synod or GA PJC might let the local governing body's decision about its membership stand, given G-1.032 to which Gene has already called our attention above, and also since the alternative would be movement in the direction of defining at the national level (albeit via a PJC decision) what an essential tenets is - something which recent General Assemblies have resisted.

Imagine, secondly, another hypothetical person who not only embraced Creator-Redeemer-Sustainer language, but who also refused - ever - to use traditional Father-Son-Holy Spirit language, even in Christian baptism where it is not optional under our Book of Order. Though I passionately disagree with this position, my hunch is that there are more than a few people who hold it who are already in ministry in presbyteries, and that some presbyteries are unaware, don't care, or even look the other way. However if a person who absolutely refused to use this language - even in baptism - were too strident or activist about this position, the issue could well wind up at the GA PJC .... and it would be extremely difficult for the GA PJC to sustain such a position, unless the Constitution were amended, since W-3.3606 says "The minister ... shall baptize in the name of the triune God. The baptismal formula is "____________, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Finally, just to further make the point that there are some boundaries which even in the PCUSA we all agree on, let us consider an example so exaggerated as to be ridiculous, hoping that it does nevertheless illuminate the issues. Imagine a minister who declared him or her self "Trinitarian," but who, upon questioning, revealed that his or her view of "Trinity" consisted of belief in Shiva, Brahman, and Vishnu - the Destroyer/Creator/Sustainer gods of Hinduism. It is impossible to imagine that any presbytery would receive such a person as a minister of Word and Sacrament in the PCUSA even though they declared their belief to be "trinitarian."

In conclusion and in response to Gene's question, as long as the General Assembly chooses not to more substantially define its ordination vows, sessions and presbyteries, while not having any right to add or subtract from them, will certainly and doubtless interpret them, and it would be hard to say they could not write down their interpretations. This is perhaps an unintended consequence of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the nineteen twenties in which the General Assembly refused to define "necessary and essential" articles but rather left that to presbyteries and sessions. As long as we have an ordination vow which asks officers to receive "the essential tenets," and as long as the denomination does not define these theological tenets, I believe we cannot squawk too loudly when sessions and presbyteries, within certain bounds, "declare the terms of admission into (their) communion, and the qualifications of (their) ministers and members, (G-1.0302)."

Winfield Casey Jones, D. Min.
Pearland, TX.

Postscript: Readers will notice that I did not mention the issue of the hour - G-6.0106 (b). It would, however, be dangerous from that silence to assume that I think there is nearly as much latitude for different polity interpretations in different presbyteries and congregations as there is latitude for diversity in deciding what the essential tenets are. That is because, while theological boundaries have not been well-defined at a national level in the PCUSA for some time, our polity tends to be very well defined. The more clearly something is defined at a national level, the less leeway for interpretation there is at the local level.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gene TeSelle comments in response:

It's a good answer to a question that I raised. What is especially interesting is that Casey agrees with the non-fundamentalists in the Presbyterian tradition who emphasize the responsibility of the governing body in determining fitness for ordination or installation.

Douglas Nave is an attorney, and a member of the Covenant Network board.   [posted 1-21-04]

Many thanks to the Witherspoon Society and its correspondents for providing some very thoughtful discussion about this important question. I would like to respond briefly to the final point raised by Rev. Winfield Casey Jones, regarding his view that there is little latitude for difference under G-6.0106b because this is a rule of polity rather than theology. I imagine Rev. Jones believes that G-6.0106b does not permit ordained service by persons in a same-sex relationship because that rule is not a statement of theology but is, rather, a clear polity standard requiring celibacy of unmarried persons.

There obviously is much disagreement in the church about whether the word "chastity" in G-6.0106b means "celibacy." Wholly apart from that debate, however, I believe that an attempt to characterize G-6.0106b as a simple rule of polity does not withstand analysis. One can conceive (from our not-too-distant past) a possible ordination standard that would bar persons in interracial marriages. Such a standard would be a very clear rule that depends on a person's chosen conduct -- he or she could decide not to marry a person of a different race, whatever the personal cost of doing so, if s/he wished to be ordained. However, the PCUSA has embraced the equality of all races as a confessional matter, and our judicatories almost certainly would rule that any standard discriminating against interracial marriage is unacceptable, as a doctrinal matter, because it perpetuates the notion that one race is superior to, or at risk of "pollution" from, another. A rule that persons who marry someone of a different race cannot be ordained, although a clear polity standard, would be recognized as an attempt to perpetuate discredited doctrine. Our rules regarding homosexual practice, likewise, can be seen as an effort to perpetuate underlying doctrinal positions. They are, in their origins and essence, theological. They are not rules of general applicability to all persons (like our requirement that ministers of Word and Sacrament obtain a theological degree) that serve practical, but non-doctrinal, interests of the church.

I have always been struck by the 1978 General Assembly's statement that, given scientific uncertainty about the nature and causes of homosexuality, "what is really important is not what homosexuality is but what we believe about it. . . . We must anchor our understanding of homosexuality in the revelation in Scripture of God's intention for human sexuality" (1978 UPC Minutes, p. 262). The foundation for all of our debates here was explicitly and thoroughly theological -- precisely the area where the Presbyterian Church has recognized the need for freedom of conscience and mutual forbearance.

There is hope that we still might find our way back to a more Presbyterian approach to our ordination standards. In 1974, the General Assembly of the PCUS issued a document entitled "The Church and Homosexuality: A Preliminary Study." In it, the PCUS recognized that faithful Presbyterians may hold a variety of views about homosexuality as sin, psychological disorder, or a natural variant of human sexuality. The General Assembly stated:

"Variations of each of the three basic positions we have outlined are chosen by faithful Christians. . . . Since homosexuality itself is such a complex phenomenon and since every homosexual person is a unique human being, it may be that no one theoretical position could be formulated which would be adequate to deal with every form of homosexuality and every homosexual person. . . . [In] view of the complexity of the issue, the disagreement among Christians and the variety in the character and experience of homosexual persons themselves, it seems unwise at this time to propose any one position as the position of our Church. . . .

Sincere desire to know the will of God for homosexual persons means openness to the possibility that what we think we already know may need to be corrected by a fresh listening for God's will as it is made known in Jesus Christ by his Spirit both through Scripture and through brother and sister Christians who may hear a different word when they seek the will of the same God in the same Christ through the same Scripture, guided by the same Spirit."

Our polity is grounded in our theology, just as our conduct reflects our convictions. It therefore is necessary to determine where a particular polity standard falls on a scale that runs from practical rules of conduct to statements of theological conviction. Few rules are wholly one or the other. However grieved we may be that the Presbyterian Church has been divided so long over the question of same-sex relations, we may take from our debates at least the comfort that we Presbyterians take our theology seriously. Because that's what G-6.0106b entails.

For further discussion, go to "Still more conversation on 'the Anglican dilemma' "