This posting is connected to the one I wrote several days
ago, “The
Book of Confessions: A controversy with the Moderator, the Stated Clerk &
Paul Hooker of the PC (U.S.A.). But before I even begin, I
want to point to another article on this same subject which I was not aware of when
I wrote mine. Reading at The Presbyterian
Outlook, I found an article by Winfield Casey Jones, “How
the 22oth General Assembly almost throw out the confessions.” His article
is excellent; I’m not sure how I missed it. Casey Jones goes point by point through Paul
Hooker’s (the chair of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution) speech on
whether motion 1304 to amend the Book of Order at W-4.9000 to two persons would
be out of order since it contradicted the Book of Confessions in four places.
My new posting is a further reflection on the subject of my
post. I was reminded by friends of the fact that the moderator’s decision was
appealed, debate followed and the moderator’s decision was upheld. And several
other questions emerged because of that debate. So what follows will be guided
by their words and resources. It will also be guided by some thoughts of Casey Jones.
Finally I have some of my on thoughts to express which entails where this might
all end.
A commissioner, Doug Megill, asked that the moderator’s decision,
that the motion was in order, be appealed. I will quote his reasons for
appealing the decision:
Yesterday’s ruling was based on
a conflict with a motion involving church property with the trust clause, today
we deal with a motion that conflicts with the Book of Confessions. I as a
Christian for whose Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, I've been instructed to
be guided by the confessions and obedient to the polity of the church. Surely
what is said repeatedly in the Book of Confessions is of more weight to our
charter from Jesus Christ to use Roberts’s language then the trust clause that
is in the form of government.
During the debate another commissioner, Amy Dame, stated
that “If our concern is that the Book of Order never conflict with our Book of
Confessions I should not be standing here as a teaching elder.” In other words
she is insisting that when women were given the right to be ordained the Book
of Confessions did not allow women to be ordained, thereby contradicting the
Book of Confessions. However, it should be noted that Teaching Elder Mary Naegeli
answered this commissioner’s question on her blog posting, “The Women’s
Question and The Confessions.
First of all Naegeli points out that when women were first
given ordination rights both the “ (UPCUSA in 1955 and PCUS in the 1960s)”
used only the Westminster Standards which says nothing about the ordination of
women. Secondly she shows how as the two denominations united into one they
adopted the Book of Confessions adding to those confessions the Confession of
1967 which as Naegeli puts it: “One of its particular objectives was to affirm
the equality of all people (regardless of social-economic status, race, or sex
[NB: not sexual practice], based on Galatians 3:28).” Naegeli concludes on this point:
So the GA commissioner spoke in
error, that the Confessions alone would have prevented her ordination. The
opposite is true, and not just conceptually but in historical experience. Our
confessions formed the defining piece of the puzzle, “compelling” the GAPJC to
make affirmation of women’s ordination a requirement for service in the church.[1]
Casey Jones also, in his last statement speaks to the real problem
which solved the women’s ordination issue but has not yet solved the issue
of same gender marriage. Both the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions would need to be amended. With his last paragraph Jones writes:
Probably the issue of
same-gender marriage will come up again in 2014. At least the church has time
to “count the cost” (Luke 14:28). The important change before the General
Assembly at that time will not be (as will be argued) primarily about approving
same-gender marriage. That could be approved decently and in order — though not
quickly — by first amending or adding to the Book of Confessions. No, the real
vote will be on whether the PC(USA) continues to be a confessional church.
And with that and an orthodox person’s question, “What if
Belhar becomes a confession in the church” I will give my own thoughts. I agree
with Casey Jones. If same gender marriage is voted into the Book of Order at the 2014
GA, we will have a broken constitution, and will not continue to be a
confessional church.
Under such circumstances, if Belhar becomes a confession in our constitution it will have no more authority over the PC (U.S.A.) than any other
confession which means no authority. Those who choose not to be guided by it
will not need to worry about being guided by it.
However, if the General Assembly and the leaders of the PC
(U.S.A.) bother to do the hard work (if they can) of changing both the
Confessions and the Book of Order to allow for same gender marriage then Belhar
will have some authority and that in itself will be a double whammy for all of
the orthodox. Because unity is raised above Lordship in Belhar, teaching elders
will undoubtedly be required to marry same gender couples, as well as ordain
LGBTQ persons. Or they will have to leave the P.C. (U.S.A.).
But let us go back to the first thought, that we become a
non-confessional church. As I stated in my earlier posting, all essentials,
including the uniqueness of the incarnation, will undoubtedly begin to fall. And
then the spiritual darkness that results will be unbearable. The cost will be
everything that belongs to Christ and his church. In either case, a confessional denomination with same gender marriage or a non-confessional denomination, relying upon
the sustaining and keeping love, grace and power of the Lord Jesus Christ is
the only way forward for the orthodox.
[1]Naegeli
lays out her argument in such a concise manner that one must read the whole
posting to understand the difference between seeking to change just one section
of the PC (U.S.A.)’s constitution and changing (correctly) the whole
constitution. Please read her whole posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment