Wednesday, September 3rd, 2014
The Layman Online > Letters to the Editor > Action of 2012 General Assembly violated Book of Order

Action of 2012 General Assembly violated Book of Order

Dear General Assembly Moderator Neal Presa and Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons:

 

I was delighted to read aloud to a session last night, as we were studying the Book of Order, the following two paragraphs about our confessions:

 

F-2.01 THE PURPOSE OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

 

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) states its faith and bears witness to God’s grace in Jesus Christ in the creeds and confessions in The Book of Confessions. In these statements the church declares to its members and to the world who and what it is, what it believes, and what it resolves to do. These statements identify the church as a community of people known by its convictions as well as by its actions. They guide the church in its study and interpretation of the Scriptures; they summarize the essence of Reformed Christian tradition; they direct the church in maintaining sound doctrines; they equip the church for its work of proclamation. They serve to strengthen personal commitment and the life and witness of the community of believers.

 

The creeds and confessions of this church arose in response to particular circumstances within the history of God’s people. They claim the truth of the Gospel at those points where their authors perceived that truth to be at risk. They are the result of prayer, thought, and experience within a living tradition. They appeal to the universal truth of the Gospel while expressing that truth within the social and cultural assumptions of their time. They affirm a common faith tradition, while also from time to time standing in tension with each other. (emphasis added)

 

The parts that I have underlined affirm and indicate, of course:

 

  1. That the confessions are a statement of the church’s current faith (note the present tense), not simply a museum collection of artifacts of what the church used to believe;
  2.  That the confessions are not only a statement of current faith but also, therefore, govern our actions, what we do together as a church; and
  3.   That despite minor variations among the confessions, they continue to affirm a common faith tradition in which we continue to stand, which we continue to believe, and by which we continue to agree to be governed.

 

This is astounding! What this means, of course, is that the advice Paul Hooker gave you on Friday afternoon, July 6, 2012, in regard to the proposal to redefine marriage, was totally wrong. It is most certainly not the case that we are free to revise the Book of Order into contradiction with The Book of Confessions, since even the Book of Order itself acknowledges (1) that the confessions state our current faith, (2) that our confessions declare what we are to do, and (3) that they do so within a coherent faith tradition.

 

Therefore, the action of the assembly to declare itself free to propose to the presbyteries that the Book of Order be revised into contradiction with The Book of Confessions violated not only The Book of Confessions and Robert’s Rules of Order, which was done with impunity, but also, strangely enough, the very Book of Order itself (which was purported to be held in higher esteem), because of these two paragraphs. I am sorry I did not remember them then. I hope we shall not make this mistake again.

 

Grace and Peace,

 

Jim

 

Dr. James C. Goodloe IV, Executive Director, Foundation for Reformed Theology

4103 Monument Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23230

 

 

About the author: admin

6 comments

  1. Dave, Fred, and Richard:

    Thank you for your replies. After the letter above was published here, the moderator did finally respond to it, though without naming me, at this link: http://www.pcusa.org/resource/nature-confessions-reformed-tradition-pcusa/.

    Regrettably, he just digs himself in deeper. Without repeating here my entire comment there (fourth from the bottom), suffice it to say that the assembly has rejected Reformed theology and both parts of our constitution, rendering us at best a non-confessional church and a post-constitutional denomination. Those are likely to have other, as of yet not thought of, implications.

    I have no illusions about the likelihood of receiving a positive response. The twenty-five or so comments on the General Assembly page mentioned above raise substantial questions, none of which have yet been answered. Still, it is important to speak the truth, and it is important for them to know that someone knows what they have done and are doing.

    Yes, the question is, how shall we best move forward. I submit that we shall do so by better preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, by better teaching the Bible and the historic faith of the church, and by better caring for the people pastorally.

  2. Richard H. says:

    Jim, I admire your good effort, but what do you hope to accomplish?

    Do you think that tradition, let alone scripture, can turn this train around?

    These people don’t care a thing about tradition or church governance. Surely the General Assemblies of the last ten to fifteen years prove that. They are driven people. The ends will justify any means. They are not playing by your rules.

    The PCUSA is not a denomination; it’s a lawsuit (or series of lawsuits).

    Don’t look back. Instead, please help us move on.

  3. Fred E. says:

    Doubt you’ll get a reply,if any, other than gobbledegook that sounds good signifying nothing. Those people have no discernible interest in ” common faith tradition”.

  4. Dave C. says:

    Well said.

  5. P. J. Southam says:

    Thank you Jim. Did you also send a copy of this letter directly to Moderator Presa and Clerk Parsons? Otherwise, they may or may not see it here on this website.
    May God bless your days and your deeds.
    P.J. Southam

Leave a comment

Comment form

All fields marked (*) are required