Presbytery of New Covenant set limits on scrupling

...

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Mr. Van Valkenburg's letter jumps into the middle of the intersection between parts I and II of our Constitution, the Book of Confessions and the Book of Order. In this letter he raises a red herring about the Book of Confessions in an attempt to argue about our presbytery's attempt to give guidance as to what are the essentials of Reformed polity contained in our Book of Order.

The specific language in the ordination/installation vows for officers in the Book of Order make clear that it is impossible to treat essentials of Reformed polity and essentials of Reformed faith in an identical way. That is because officers pledge to be governed by our polity (Book of Order), and "to be governed" means one obeys shalls and requirements. On other hand, with respect to our confessions, officers pledge less--only to be instructed, led, and guided by them (and to receive and adopt the "essential tenets" contained in them.) But since the essential tenets of Reformed faith contained in the eleven confessional documents are not specified at this time, it is understood that governing bodies must determine them. Generally, one criterion for determining whether a doctrine contained in a confession is essential would be its strong appearance in many if not most of the other ten confessions!

It may be possible for Mr. Van Valkenburg to make the argument he is trying to make, but I doubt it. To even try to make it, he must first of all look carefully at the deliberate language of G-6.0106 b rather than at what he seems to imagine it to say.

G-6.0106 b says, "Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged actions which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed..." Mr. Van Valkenburg's letter is written as if G- 6.0106 b said officers need to repent of any action "a confession (singular) calls sin," but of course it says they must repent of actions "the confessions calls sin."

The second sentence of G-6.0106 b is clear that there is a very specific named requirement for officers in the Book of Order to "live in fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness." However, as to other practices which the confessions call sin, the third sentence of G-6.0106 b obviously calls for governing bodies to decide which sins mentioned in a confession are also mentioned in enough other confessions to qualify as practices the confessions call sin.

Before someone is too dismissive of this confessional hermeneutic, let's remember that since at least the time of Augustine, this has been exactly how we read the Bible. Christians have been taught to compare scripture with scripture and to discern the witness of scripture as a whole. Discerning the witness of our confessions as a whole is analogous.

To summarize, the Book of Order is one document, and officers promise to be governed by it. To say that being governed by our polity includes obeying shalls and requirements in the Book of Order is self-evident. It is arguing anything else that is a stretch.

On the other hand, Part I of our Constitution, the Book of Confessions, contains eleven documents written over a period of almost 1800 years in many languages. In some areas, such as the role of women in leadership, the confessions actually contradict one another. Hence the need for governing bodies to decide the witness of the confessions as a whole. Likely beliefs which could be seen as essentials of Reformed faith --like the divinity of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, and justification by grace alone through faith alone (just to name a few)--are strongly emphasized over and over again in these confessional documents. But if a governing body decided they were essentials, they would be "essentials of Reformed faith," and the decision of the Presbytery of New Covenant http://www.presbyweb.com/2006/News/0823--Casey+Jones--NewCovenantPresbytery-Ordination+Standards.htm refers to essentials of Reformed polity.

- Winfield Jones

...

Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:00:00 +0100

I would not agree with this; it is a little ham-fisted, doctrinaire, whatever you want to call it. But as I have been arguing all along that the PUP report 'allows' governing bodies to do no more than they could already do before GA217, and as I have been arging as well, the PUP report does nothing, per se, to alter the Book of Order, it seems to me that under the 'polity' structure of the Church, a presbytery can adopt such an interpretation for itself (if it wants to remain stuck in the history of God's unfolding plan). Anyone who runs up against this can appeal to the higher governing body, but it would be hard to imagine any case being overturned. - Hal Martin

Member, First PC, Bryan, TX

Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:00:00 +0100

The Book of Order states (6.0106b) states ..."Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged actions which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed..." The Second Helvetic Confession (5.020 in the Book of Confessions) states "...we have no fear in pronouncing with Scripture that images of God are mere lies. Therefore we reject not only the idols of Gentiles but also the images of Christians." In the clearest possible terms, our Book of Confessions labels Christian images such as those found in stained glass windows "mere lies"---SIN! I am a member of a New Covenant congregation: FPC in Bryan, TX. Our pastor is concluding a ten part sermon series focusing on the ten stained glass windows of our sanctuary. The art in the windows contain many images, which were the focus of his sermons. The sermons have not expressed disapproval of these images, far from it. This art has not been portrayed as "mere lies"--quite the opposite. Would a candidate for ordination or installation in our presbytery who acknowledged preaching such sermons (and overseeing a recent extensive renovation that left these windows intact) be denied for these actions? If the presbytery's answer is that that would be ridiculous, then apparently we CAN accept scruples over statements using "shall," "is/are to be," "required," "requirement," or equivalent expressions. - Carl Van Valkenburg

...

Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Fantastic! I applaud the Presbytery of New Covenant for upholding the plain intent of our constituting documents--Scripture, the Book of Confessions, and the Book of Order. May more and more presbyteries move in this direction. Clay Brown, late of Houston, TX, now pastor of FPC Mooresville, NC - Clay Brown

...

Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:00:00 +0100

And the split into red presbyteries and blue presbyteries begins. *sigh* - Mark Smith

...

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Brilliant. - Cameron Mott