Nave on conscience

The Layman editorial:

an effort to "override the freedom of conscience"?

A comment by Doug Nave

[3-8-01]

Check out other comments by Jonathan Justice and elder Marcia Casais, each offering their own concerns with the Layman's notion of voting "in lockstep," as Justice calls it.

An editorial published in the Jan/Feb 2001 on-line edition of the Presbyterian Layman ("Scripture and conscience") raises profoundly troubling suggestions as to how churches should prepare their commissioners to vote in upcoming meetings of presbyteries and General Assembly. The author states that an elder was "stunned" by how his congregation's delegation voted 3-3 in its presbytery's consideration of Amendment O, since "[t]he conscience clause is not a license to vote your personal preference if that preference clearly violates Scripture." He then charges that:

The elders and ministers involved in that 3-3 split did not exercise corporate leadership by their votes. They did not demonstrate to the rest of the congregation that they had diligently pursued the mind of Christ. Sadly, they showed that their leadership failed the test of accountability to each other and a common pursuit of truth. Such divisions should not occur.

The writer urges Sessions to discuss contentious issues, to "seek common ground," and then to select commissioners who concur in the clear views the editorialist assumes must come out of common study.

This editorial is among the latest in a series of attempts by more conservative parts of our denomination to override the freedom of conscience that provides one of the bedrock principles of our community (G-1.0301). In charging that some votes were based on "personal preference" rather than a good faith attempt to discern what Scripture teaches, the writer shows an arrogant certitude that denies any possibility of the continuing revelation that has led us so recently to acknowledge error in how the Church has supported the subjugation of women, slavery and segregation, anti-Semitism, and a host of other grievous ills in the past. In suggesting that the presbyters from this church did not "exercise corporate leadership," the writer disregards the courage these individuals displayed in taking what was undoubtedly a difficult and personally painful step to differ publicly with each other in a matter of conscience. More seriously, even, in charging that these presbyters "failed the test of accountability to each other," the writer misapprehends the very foundation of our life as a faith community, that we are accountable to Jesus Christ alone, who is sole Head of the Church (G-1.0100).

Our entire presbyterian system is grounded in the belief that human discernment is fallible. We therefore have rejected the extremes both of episcopacy (human hierarchies that may vest too much in a few authoritative persons) and congregationalism (agglomerations of autonomous and potentially parochial groups). Rather, we have a representative system of progressively larger and more inclusive groups of presbyters who deliberate together in an effort to discover the best discernment among people of diverse perspectives.

As stated in the Historic Principles of Church Government, our commissioners serve as "a representation of the whole" -- not as persons instructed by discrete congregations or groups -- so that issues may be decided "by the collected wisdom and united voice of the whole Church" (G-1.0400). The "basic principles of Presbyterian polity" include the fact that "presbyters are not simply to reflect the will of the people, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ" (G-4.0301d). We send delegates to our assemblies to dialogue, pray, deliberate, and discern together -- not simply to vote. Were it the latter, we would be congregationalists, rather than Presbyterians, and we might best streamline our processes and eliminate undue expense if we began polling by mail.

It is perhaps again worth emphasizing some of the great insights in the 1983 Report of the Special Committee on Historic Principles, Conscience, and Church Government 146, 150, 153 (PCUSA Minutes, 1983, Pt. I, p.141, received and adopted, PCUSA Minutes, 1983, Pt. I, pp. 105, 115-16):

[Presbyterians are suspicious of particular congregations as sufficient expressions of the covenant. . . . Our polity affirms that it is the more inclusive governing bodies which are more truly representative of the diversity of God's covenant people. Thus they are more likely to reflect accurately the church's understanding of God's will than are the less inclusive and inevitably more parochial governing bodies of the church. . . .
Every governing body is composed of persons who are elected to represent the church. Representatives are not simply to reflect the will of the people but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ for the Church. For this reason, the polity of the Church requires that representatives may not be instructed nor vote by proxy. They must have the freedom to participate in debate. Debate within the context of prayer is properly open to the movement of the Holy Spirit. Representatives must be open to the possibility of having their minds changed. . . .

The same principles were emphasized in the 1993 Report of the Special Committee on the Nature of the Church and the Practice of Governance (PCUSA Minutes, 1993, Part I, p. 355, received and adopted, PCUSA Minutes, 1993, Pt. I, pp. 89, 95). That report states unequivocally that "[h]istorically, ordained ministers and elders are selected by the people to seek the will of God together in assembled councils. . . . They participate uninstructed by their constituencies, but promise to lead the people as they are led in the conciliar body" (26.175). The report affirms that "the fullest understanding of God's will for our lives is to be heard through the deliberations that take place in the largest possible diverse and inclusive body of those gifted by God to govern the church together" (26.216). As adopted by General Assembly, the report emphasizes repeatedly that the church "does not wish commissioners to be instructed in any way" (26.282), and warns that care should be taken against "constricting the possibility of the Holy Spirit being able to be heard through the deliberation of an inclusive governing body" (26.348).

It has been reported by the Rev. Steven W. Plank that in 1978, when our denomination was debating homosexuality, Elder William Thompson, the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, discovered that some presbyteries were examining potential commissioners on the issues before electing them, while other presbyteries were considering instructing their commissioners how to vote. Rev. Thompson reportedly stated that this was so inconsistent with our Presbyterian system of governance that he would pull the credentials of any commissioners he discovered to have been elected or instructed in such a manner that they were not free, based on prayer, study, and discussion, to discern and declare what they believed to be the will of God.

Those who serve in our presbyteries and General Assembly do not come to register pre-ordained views; they come to "submit themselves prayerfully" (26.274) to a process of dialogue, prayer, and discernment together with the other commissioners assembled. The report on the Nature of the Church (26.202) reminds us that:

Governance in the Reformed tradition is not a foremost adherence to a set of procedures; it is the constant struggle to be faithful to the God who called the church into being and whose spirit reforms the church when it is able to hear and respond. . . . In the future, we may not be the most popular church, but we can be faithful to God's call to God's people.

There can be no higher calling, or challenge, than that. One hopes that our commissioners are up to the task, and are allowed to perform it.