Presbyterian Coalition, TTF discuss report ramifications

...

Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:00:00 +0100

I find the following statement from Milton "Joe" Coalter fascinating: '...but some sins listed in the confessions, such as neglecting to observe the Sabbath as a day of worship and rest, are routinely overlooked. Is the PC(USA) being strict about not ordaining gays' Does failure to srictly enforce one aspect of constitutional law invalidate the strict enforcement of another part? Based upon what I see in any country in the world, including the USA, the failure to strictly enforce one law has no bearing on the legitimacy or the strictness of enforcement of another. Does regular failure to come to a complete stop at stop signs invalidate the strictness of enforcement of other laws concerning motor vehicles? NO! Could one caught doing 40 mph in a 20 mph school zone argue that because the stop sign law is not strictly enforced, the speed limit through school zones cannot be strictly enforced? Good luck in court, but bring your chequebook! The fact that the PC(USA) does not strictly and literally enforce one aspect of its constitutional law has no bearing on the enforcement of another part. This is consistent with any other human organization that has a constitution. It is called using judgement about which laws are more important. At the end of a long internal dialogue on the ordination standards, the PC(USA) specifically added elements to its constitution to address the ordination standards issue. One can only logically conclude that the majority behind this approval saw this as very important and therefore in need of enforcement. With enforcement of the ordination standards as intended, perhaps we should address what it means to honor the sabbath in the USA today... - Will Groten

Tuff Pup - Demerest

Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Dr. Demarest is quoted as saying, 'Christians, joined together in baptism, not walking together is not an option.' Like so much in the Tuff Pup presentation, glibness hides truth. Romans 16: 17; I Corinthians 5: 1 - 13; Galatian 5: 10, 12; II Thessalonians 3: 6; I Timothy 6: 3 - 5; II john 10, 11 all speak of shunning so-called 'brothers' who promote division or sin. Separation is not only an option, but a command. Of course, lacking the courage and conviction to exercise church discipline, why would we expect to have the courage to separate? - George Rittenhouse

Senior Pastor, Palos Park Presbyterian Community Church

Wed, 17 May 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Thanks to Leslie Scanlon for her insightful piece on the interview by the Presbyterian Coalition of five members of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church. As one of the interviewers, my perspective is somewhat foreshortened. So it was with relief that I read the Outlook story's first observation: the Task Force members did state that Recommendation 5 is an experiment. In fact they repeatedly said they did not know what it would produce in the church. They said that one reason they proposed it as an Authoritative Interpretation (rather than a constitutional amendment) was so that a single General Assembly could retract or modify it if its unintended results were not good. But they did not know what it would bring.

My question, reported by the article, about property was intended as an illustration, not a prediction. I had asked if the ordination questions could be reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately scrupled by elders elect before the Session (the ordaining governing body). Yes, the Task Force answered. Could the ordination question about being willing to be "governed by the polity and abide by the discipline" of our church allow elders to state specific requirements of the BoO with which they would not comply? Yes, again. Could that possibly include any provision of the Book of Order? Yes. Would that even apply to the property chapter? Yes, the Task Force said. Is there any provision of the BoO that could not be scrupled? The Task Force could not name a single one.

Is there any way for the church as a whole (rather than a single ordaining governing body) to require that any standard in the Book of Order be found to be an "essential of reformed faith or polity"? The Task Force could name not a single provision or standard which the whole church would have the power to require of all ordinands.

In fact, the Task Force made it clear that they believe the church as a whole should no longer have the power to require any particular binding essentials that would direct the decisions of ordaining governing bodies in making ordination decisions. If their report is approved, the church as a whole will no longer be able to establish or require compliance to any ordination boundaries.

I eventually asked whether a review of a decision to permit the ordination of a candidate contrary to the "standards" of the Book of Order could find that the ordaining governing body had erred in its determining what is essential. This time the answer was NO. Ordaining governing bodies' decisions determine what is essential.period. The PUP recommendations make that clear. Only the manner of the decision making is reviewable. Even the property chapter, I asked? Yes, they said, even property standards. Only the process may be reviewed. The outcome is left entirely to the ordaining governing bodies and may not be corrected.

Thus, every ordination decision to allow exception to the "standards" of the church would have to be honored by the courts, unless it was made in an unreasonable, irresponsible way. Could it be considered unreasonable or irresponsible for an ordaining body to have made a decision that violates any particular standard? "Not by itself" was the response. One of the Task Force members said he thought if that happened repeatedly, it might be considered nullification of the standards. But he admitted he did not know if Recommendation 5 could really be interpreted that way, since it would require a decision by a Permanent Judicial Commission, which has yet to act on any of these pending provisions. He just did not know what the result would turn out to be.

So, my strongest impression confirms Scanlon's article. Recommendation 5 is an experiment. The Task Force admittedly can only guess what its effect will be in the church. Such confusion will hardly produce peace, unity or purity.

- James R. Tony

Honorably Retired

Sat, 13 May 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Quite apart from the PR surrounding the PUP report and the members of that task force, it was clear to me from the beginning when I read the names of the members of the committee, that it would become a mutual admiration (I used another word for 'admiration' with some of my pastor friends) society that would meet, spend a great deal of money, and come out exactly where the noisy left-wing of the church wanted them to come out. This is not a serious group and they have not reached anything near a serious report. The PUP report should sink like a stone at the General Assembly in Birmingham, but then, as I learned in church polity under Dr. David Stitt at Austin Seminary, 'courts of the church may err.' For a case-in-point, recall the terminally foolish decision of the last Assembly to divest of church investments (which the Assembly does not control) from companies doing business in Israel. That was the final blow in the institutional anti-semitism as practiced by the leadership of the PCUSA. One can only hope that this Assembly in Birmingham will be more discerning in its actions, especially as regards the PUP report. It would also be refreshing to see the Assembly reject the 'compromise' task force suggested by the present Moderator to 'monitor' events in the Middle East, and simply overturn the error of the last Assembly regarding divestment, remembering that 'courts of the church may err.' - Walter Funk

Vienna Presbyterian Church

Fri, 12 May 2006 12:00:00 +0100

On discussing the PUP report, one elder, an attorney commented on the 'process' question: 'If the decision to ordain is subject to review by a higher judicatory and could be set aside, why not review the facts of the case first, then provide the ordaining Presbytery with a preliminary or determing judgement?' - paul johnson

...

Fri, 12 May 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Dr. Achtemeier don't we need to ask what does God want us to do? Dont't we need to look at the facts? How many people have left the PCUSA and how many more does the GAC think are planning to leave? What indeed is God doing even now? Should we follow the teaching of the Bible? Jim Skidmore, Elder Montreat, North Carolina - James Skidmore

...

Thu, 11 May 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Achtemeier comes across as very blithe with his comments that the PUP report is 'an experiment' and that it could be 'undone by the next assembly if it turns out to be a mistake.' This reminds me of one old church member's comment that when Jesus gave Peter charge over the church he said, 'feed my sheep' not 'experiment on my rats.' - elliott scott

Executive Pastor, First Presbyterian Church

Thu, 11 May 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Dr. Achtemeier says that these 'wars' over homosexuality bring scandal to the cause of Christ. This is nonsense; the same must be said for the work of Luther, Calvin, Knox, and MLK. Conflict per se is no scandal; the real scandal is putting truth and falsehood on a level, passing off libertine sexuality as a valid Christian opinion. Not all opinions are valid, not all points of view are equally true, and not all conflicts hurt the cause of Christ. Let us pray that these are the birthpangs of PCUSA's veritable renewal. - Noel K. Anderson