On January 30, 2002, via Federal Express, Mr. David C.
Smith, one of Norman F. Blessing's (hereinafter "Blessing")
co-counsel, served a document on Rev. Dr. Dale Heaton, chair of the
Central Florida Presbytery P.J.C., entitled "Response of Norman F.
Blessing, Elder, to the Amended Answer of the Session of First
Presbyterian Church of Sebastian (U.S.A.) (hereinafter "RESPONSE").
This document was not received by the Session of First Presbyterian
Church of Sebastian (U.S.A.) (hereinafter "Sebastian") until
February 4, 2002. As stated in the earlier Motion for Continuance of
Sebastian, the RESPONSE contains new allegations and requests for relief
not contained in Blessing's original complaint. Although, pursuant to
D-7.0401, certain amendments to a complaint are permitted, these
amendments may not change the substance of the complaint or prejudice
the respondent. The amendments in Blessing's "RESPONSE" are
both substantive and prejudicial to Sebastian being first raised less
than three weeks before trial. Sebastian has formally requested a
continuance to allow it the 45 days mandated by D-6.0303 in which to
respond to these allegations. This brief in opposition is not and should
not be construed as an answer to the amendments included in the
RESPONSE, but rather addresses and is intended to address only those
issues raised in the RESPONSE which are pertinent to Blessing's original
complaint. Before addressing the substantive matters, however, it is
necessary to address a number of factual issues raised by Blessing in
the RESPONSE.
- I. FACTUAL ISSUES RAISED BY BLESSING IN RESPONSE.
A. Session's adoption of the resolution affirming historic
Confessions (hereinafter referred to as the "Resolution of
Affirmation").
Blessing fails to include in the factual summary in his RESPONSE
that the matter of the Resolution of Affirmation was reconsidered at the
July 10, 2001 meeting of the Sebastian Session. At this meeting Blessing
was given full opportunity to voice his opposition on the Resolution of
Affirmation and to move for rescission. Thus, the matter was not
deliberated only once with Blessing out of town, but a second time with
Blessing present.
Following the adoption of the Resolution of Affirmation and his failed
attempt to have it rescinded, Blessing attempted to stir up the
congregation against the Resolution of Affirmation. He was unsuccessful
in this attempt as well. It is clear that the Resolution of Affirmation
enjoys overwhelming support from the congregation. See the letter
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A.
- B. Original Answer of Sebastian
Blessing next alleges that the answer of Sebastian dated and filed
with this body on September 27, 2001 was not timely filed. In making
this allegation, Blessing overlooks the provisions of D-6.0303 which
provides that the answer is due 45 days after the complaint is filed.
The answer was not 10 days late. The point of fact, it was 3 days early.
- II. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES RAISED BY BLESSING IN RESPONSE
A. Introduction
Blessing labors under two important misapprehensions. First, he
views the historic confessions of our church as mere subordinate guides
to be accepted or rejected as "each person may hear the spirit
differently". He decries as "unconstitutional" the
affirmation of these historic confessions and their application to the
officers of the church. Contrary to his assertions, the historic
confessions of our church are part of our Constitution (G-1.0500) and
subordinate only to the Word of God, Jesus Christ, as the Scriptures
bear witness to him. They are not lightly drawn up or subscribed to, nor
may they be ignored or dismissed. The church is prepared to counsel with
or even to discipline one ordained who seriously rejects the faith
expressed in the confessions. (G-2.0200)
Secondly, Blessing views the Resolution of Affirmation as the adoption
of a new confession in the constitutional sense. It is not. Instead,
Sebastian has joined other like-minded Christians in confessing certain
truths contained in our historical constitutional confessions. This is
thoroughly consistent with our Constitution and in fact mandated by our
Book of Order. (W-5.1003).
Having created the straw man of a confession in the constitutional
sense, Blessing's RESPONSE then proceeds, for most of its length, to
knock it down.
Sebastian agrees that no session can adopt a "constitutional
confession". However, there is a significant difference between a "confession"
as a constitutional document and the idea of "confessing",
which is a central imperative for all Christians. Sebastian has amply
demonstrated the consistency of what it has joined with other churches
in confessing, with the historic constitutional confessions of our
church. These confessions are the first part of our Constitution.
Finally, Blessing challenges the second part of the Resolution of
Affirmation in which Sebastian implores all Presbyterians who uphold the
previously set forth historic Christian convictions to "Renew their
individual and corporate commitments to the above statements"; "Urge
their sessions and Presbyteries to affirm the Confessions and to declare
that they will not ordain, install or employ in any ministry position
any person who will not affirm them"; and "Urge the 2001
General Assembly to instruct the General Assembly Counsel to uphold
these Confessions and to insure that these Confessions are following
faithfully in all programs and policies of the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.)". Blessing fails to include a single instance in his
Complaint where he, or any other person, has been denied ordination as a
consequence of these provisions. As a consequence, this issue is not
ripe for adjudication by this Permanent Judicial Commission.
Additionally, Sebastian challenges the jurisdiction of this Commission
to develop sweeping policy decisions which go beyond the facts presently
before it.
- B. Our Constitution includes eleven historic Confessions
which must be received and adopted by deacons and elders as part of
their ordination vows.
The ordination vows undertaken by elders and deacons require an
affirmative response to the question: "Do you sincerely receive and
adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the
confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what
the Scriptures lead us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and
led by those confessions as you lead the people of God?"
(G-14.207c). Blessing attempts to mischaracterize this charge by seeking
to redefine the terms "instructed" and "led" and
emphasizing his redefinition to the exclusion of the other imperatives
of the charge. The terms "instructed" and "led", he
implies, mean that our confessions are mere suggestions that we are free
as Presbyterians to accept or reject, much as one is free to accept,
reject or ignore a caution sign on a roadway.
Blessing goes so far as to suggest that the role of our historic
confessions has changed over the years. As authority for this
proposition, Blessing cites to Rankin v. National Capital Union
Presbytery, Minutes of the General Assembly (UP), 1981 Part I, pages
113 to 115. To properly understand Rankin it is important to
understand that Rankin first and foremost is a case dealing with
the extent to which a reviewing body may interfere with or overturn the
decision of a Presbytery in ordaining or choosing not to ordain a
candidate for ministry. The quotation Blessing lifts from this case is
taken completely out of context. The Rankin case involved a
comparison of the vows candidates were asked to take earlier and those
in force at the time of the decision. Two of the vows at the time of
Rankin were:
- (3) Will you be instructed by the Confessions of our Church and
led by them as you lead the people of God? and
- (4) Will you be a minister of the Word in obedience to Jesus
Christ under the authority of Scriptures, and continually guided by
our confessions?
These provisions were compared to and contrasted against the
earlier and deleted vow:
- (3) Do you sincerely receive and adopt the confessions of faith
and the catechisms of this church as containing the system of
doctrine taught in Holy Scripture?
The deleted provision is amazingly similar to the provision now
and again contained in the ordination vows:
- (c) Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of
the Reformed faith as stated in the confessions of our church as
authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to
believe and do and will you be instructed and led by those
confessions as you lead the people of God? (G-14.0207a)
It stands to reason that if the deletion of the old vow number 3
caused a shift in focus from empirical standards by which the
candidate's theology was judged to the candidate's ability to use a
number of confessional formulations to learn from, be guided by, and
lead the people of God, the reintroduction of a vow similar to the old
vow number 3 should result in a shift of focus to consideration both of
the candidate's theology and the candidate's ability to have this
theology express itself in the way in which she leads the people of God.
The Rankin case cites to the Report of the Special Commission of
1925 which was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly on May 30,
1927. This report drew together nearly 200 years of Presbyterian
constitutional development and practice with the powers of Presbytery
and is now considered the authoritative statement of the constitutional
principles. The interim report provided in part:
- It is our deep conviction that the great body of the Church is
sound in faith, even when that faith is tested by the strictest
standards. It holds fast to its historic faith in God's relation to
this universe as its Creator and as the vital and unifying and
governing Personality who imparts to the system order, stability and
moral purpose; in the true deity of our Lord Jesus Christ and His
true incarnation and His virgin Birth and His resurrection from the
dead; in His sinless holiness, the atoning sacrifice of His Cross,
and His power to forgive sins. It stands fast in its faith that He
is the only Savior and that He is able to save to the uttermost them
that come unto God by Him; that the new life from above which is
essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God is created in the soul
by the power of His Holy Spirit; that His Kingdom covers all human
relationships and actions and that it includes the exercise of all
power in heaven and on earth. It holds fast to its historic
conception of the nature of the Church and to the Constitution which
we have inherited from the fathers. It stands upon the divine
authority of the Holy Scriptures, whatever divergences there may be
in their interpretation. It is the unshakable assurance of the
Church that once the true content of the Scriptures is ascertained,
their authority is supreme and final.
- That God by His Holy Spirit has made a revelation of his grace
in Christ, and of His righteous will, that we have this revelation
in the Scriptures, "the only infallible rule of faith and
practice," that they are sufficient to give knowledge of
salvation, and of the way of Christian living, and the "the
Supreme Judge by whom all controversies of religion are to be
determined . . . can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the
Scripture," is a position upon which the Presbyterian Church
stands firmly and for which it is ready earnestly to contend.
- In these weighty Christian verities as held by the Presbyterian
Church throughout its entire history, and only briefly catalogued
here, we have a body of doctrine and a system of polity which bind
us into a close and abiding unity, and priceless and common
inheritance from the past which vests the title of heirship in every
one of us without distinction. This is a tremendous fact that must
not be forgotten when we are reflecting upon our differences. In
spite of wide geographical distances separating our churches and
ministers, in spite of varying racial roots which reach back into
the centuries and which are fed on sentiments that provoked national
wars and reddened the earth with the blood of historic conflicts, in
spite of every extreme of difference in residence and education, in
social contacts and life-long customs, here we stand, a Church, with
one heart beating at the center of its corporate life, bound
together by the firm ties of a shining record that embraces the
sacrifices and triumphs of the past, of a faith engaging the rich
loyalties and abundant labors of the present, and of a hope,
yearning, but sure, and drawing into its stimulating experience the
holy promise of a fairer future-bound into a unity which, we
believe, our generation will not break.
- There are valuable moral and spiritual resources in the life of
our Church which must not be overlooked even in so brief a survey.
Some of these are the deposit and tradition of life and character
which we have inherited from the past, the product of home life and
training, of Biblical preaching, of a faithful, educated and
evangelical ministry, of a loyal and living faith in Christ as the
complete and absolute revelation of God, our only and sufficient
Savior. This great deposit and all that lies back of it and produces
and sustains it, we all desire to keep and to pass on to the
generations following. (G.005 Book of Confessions)
The requirements of those who enter upon church leadership, which
Sebastian reaffirmed in its Resolutions of Affirmation, are not
inconsistent with our Constitution. They are, instead, in keeping with
it and the requirements of the Book of Order.
- D. Our Constitution does inscribe infallibility to the
Scriptures themselves.
Since our Confession are part of our Constitution, it cannot be
said that the constitution does not ascribe infallibility to the
Scriptures. Section 6.052 of Part I of our Constitution provides in
part:
- By Him the prophets were moved to speak the Word of God and all
the writers of the Holy Scriptures inspired to record infallibly the
mind and will of God.
Likewise, Section 6.184 of Part I of our Constitution provides in
part:
- He is the Lord and Giver of life, everywhere present and is the
source of all good thoughts, pure desires, and holy counsels in men.
By him the prophets were moved to speak the Word of God, and all the
writers of the Holy Scriptures inspired to record infallibly one
mind and will of God.
- E. Blessing's challenge to the second part of the Resolution
of Affirmation is not ripe for adjudication by this Permanent
Judicial Commission.
Blessing complains that Sebastian's decision to implore all
Presbyterians who uphold these historic Christian Confessions to urge
their sessions and presbyteries ... to declare that they will not
ordain, install or employ in any ministry position any person who will
not affirm them is inconsistent with the vow of ordination undertaken in
the ordination service. Yet, he does not provide a single example of
anyone, including himself, who has been denied ordination on the basis
of Sebastian's imploring. What Blessing has done is to file a Complaint
prospectively, on the assumption that harm will be done. This is not
proper issue for determination by the Permanent Judicial Commission. (Mount
Auburn Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Cincinnati, PJC (1995),
12511.060). Nor is it the province of the Permanent Judicial Commission
to act as a general board of review. (Broad Ave. Presbyterian
Church, et al. v. General Assembly Counsel, PJC (1995), 123,
11.059). Consequently, this issue is not ripe for adjudication and those
parts of his Complaint dealing with it should be stricken.
- F. The Confession adopted by the Sebastian Session is
consistent with the ordination vows.
In his RESPONSE, Blessing seeks to compare the second paragraph of
the Resolution of Affirmation to paragraph (b) of the ordination vow to
find a "critical distinction" between the two. For ease of
reference, the respective provisions are as follows:
Paragraph 2 of the Sebastian Resolution of Affirmation provides:
- Holy Scripture is the revealed Word of the triune God and the
Church's only infallible rule of faith in life.
Paragraph (b) of the ordination vows provides:
- Do you accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be,
by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus
Christ in the Church universal and God's Word to you? (G-14.0207b).
Blessing suggests that prior to 1969, elders of the UPC were
required to affirm a provision similar to paragraph 2 of the Resolution
of Affirmation cited above. He asserts, however, that this all changed
at the 1969 General Assembly in San Antonio, Texas when this provision
was changed to the current paragraph (b) cited above. He claims that the
change was made because the vows were found to be "archaic".
Blessing's narration of what happened in San Antonio is, at best, a
startling departure from fact. What was deemed "archaic" was
not the substance of the vows, but, rather their language. In fact the
joint committee went so far as to say:
- "There has been no attempt in the overture to write
questions with new substance. Rather, the attempt has been to
preserve the substance and the spirit of the presently prescribed
questions and to state them; in clear contemporary English."
(See paragraph 1. at page 384).
It should also be noted that the vows of ordination have been
amended since 1969 to include what is now referred to as paragraph (c).
Blessing's comparison of paragraph 2 of the Resolution of Affirmation
with paragraph (b) of the vows of ordination is misplaced. In fact, this
provision is more appropriately compared with paragraph (c) which
requires, inter alia, that the candidate receive and adopt the essential
tenets of the Reformed faith, as expressed in the confessions of our
church, as authentic and reliable expressions of what Scripture leads us
to believe and do. The confessions, as indicated in Sebastian's amended
answer, include all tenets of paragraph 2 of the resolution.
Accordingly, it cannot be alleged that paragraph 2 of the Resolution of
Affirmation is inconsistent with the vows currently required by the Book
of Order.
- G. Adopting the Resolution of Affirmation and the actions
called for therein are all proper actions for a session as the
governing body of the local church and the body charged with the
duty to lead and instruct the congregation and its elders.
Sebastian has adopted a non-exclusive list of principles and
commitments, all consistent with the Confessions of the Church, that are
relevant and appropriate to explain the meaning and requirements of the
Church's Constitution. This is particularly relevant to the Church in a
time of controversy and confusion.
It is a proper, indeed essential, role for the session. The session is
responsible for the "mission... of the particular church".
(G-10.0100). "It is the duty of elders, individually and jointly,
to strengthen and nurture the faith and life of the congregation
committed to their charge." (G-6.030). The session has the
responsibility and the power to:
- (a) "lead the congregation" in participation in the
mission of the whole Church in the World. (G-10.0102c).
- (b) "lead the congregation continually to discover what God
is doing in the World and to plan for change, renewal, and
reformation under the Word of God". (G-10.0102j).
- (c) "instruct... elder... and to inquire into their
faithfulness". (G-10.01021).
All of the above permit and indeed demand that the session speak
from time to time upon areas in which, in its judgment, the congregation
should be led or particular elders should be instructed.
Blessing's objections, no matter how real and how passionately held by
him, provide no basis in fact or law upon which this body may grant all
or any part of the relief requested in the Complaint.
- H. The freedom of conscience contemplated by our Constitution
must be exercised in a manner consistent with the essentials of our
reformed faith.
In his RESPONSE, Blessing contends that our Constitution guarantees
his freedom of conscience "in that each person may hear the Spirit
differently". (RESPONSE at page 11). While the Westminster
Confession of Faith does guarantee freedom of conscience, it is only
from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything
contrary to His Word. The provisions of G-4.0305 do not run contrary to
this confession. In quoting from this provision, Blessing conveniently
omits the first part of G-1.0305, as well as (G-1.0304), which it
references. These provide:
- "(4) That truth is in order to goodness; and the great
touchtone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness, according to
our Savior's rule, "by their fruits ye shall know them."
And that no opinion can be either more pernicious or more absurd
than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and
represents it as of no consequence what a man's opinions are. On the
contrary, we are persuaded that there is an inseparable connection
between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise, it would be
of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it."
- "(5) That, while under the conviction of the above
principle we think it necessary to make effectual provision that all
who are admitted as teachers be sound in the faith, we also believe
that there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good
characters and principles may differ and in all these we think it
the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual
forbearance towards each other."
Blessing's insistence that he is entitled to his own opinion, and
the deification of his own "conscience" flies in the face of
the above and other governing principles of our denomination:
- (G-6.0108b).
"It is to be recognized, however, that in becoming a candidate
or officer of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one chooses to
exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds. His or her
conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the
standards of the Church so long as he or she continues to seek or
hold office in that body. The decision as to whether a person has
departed from the essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made
initially by the individual concerned but ultimately becomes the
responsibility of the governing body in which he or she serves."
(G-1.0301; G-1.0302).
- In 1983 the General Assembly adopted the following "resolution
as a solemn interpretation:"
- "The historic principles of Presbyterianism have sought to
establish balance between the private judgment of the individual and
the freedom of the Church to order its affairs. While the majority
cannot force its will on an unwilling minority, neither can the
minority thwart the intention of the majority on grounds that the
conscience of the minority is violated. Freedom of conscience does
not require that the conscientious opinion of every member of the
Church will prevail. Where there are differences of opinion, our
Church recognizes that the ways of resolving conflict between the
freedom of individual conscience and the requirements of our polity
are compromise, acquiescence by one group or another, or the
withdrawal without causing schism. Therefore, the freedom of
conscience is not abridged by the requirements of our Constitution."
(Minutes of the General Assembly, 1983, Part I, pp. 157 to 158).
The unbridled freedom of conscience which Blessing advocates is a
recipe for anarchy. If the Spirit truly says one thing to one individual
and something contrary to another, we serve an arbitrary and capricious
God whose commands and promises cannot be trusted because they change
from day to day and person to person. There would be no basis for
ascertaining what is truth and what is falsehood since when questioned
one could simply demur "the Spirit told me this". In the end
we would be "of all men most miserable". To the contrary, God
has promised us that He is the same yesterday, today and forever. His
Word is immutable and unchangeable.
- III. CONCLUSION
Sebastian has joined an informal association known as the
Confessing Church Movement. This is a grass roots movement comprised to
date of over 1,211 churches currently representing approximately 10.8%
of the churches in the PAUSE and approximately 16% of its members. These
churches currently make up approximately 25% of the annual giving to the
denomination. More churches are being added each month. The Confessing
Church Movement has no organizational objectives; it does not seek to
divide the denomination; it has no political objectives or agenda; it is
responsible, mainline, moderate and reasonable.
All of the confessing statements in Sebastian's Resolution of
Affirmation are drawn from our confessional documents and current Book
of Order where they are standards of our denomination. They are also
supported by Scripture. Yet, these standards have increasingly come
under attack by our denominational leaders and are being ignored by many
churches and Presbyteries. And when and where they have been ignored or
defied by session and presbyteries, our denomination leaders have not
acted to preserve and defend our Constitution. There have been a
multiplicity of events within the Church which are repugnant to
Scripture and our Book of Confessions. These include the unstinting
support by our denomination, including staff, money and personnel, for
the Re-imaging Conference, in which the autonomous self was exalted, the
transcendence of God was denied, and the atoning work of Jesus Christ
was rejected; the refusal of our leadership to deal with heresy; the
failure of our denomination to clearly acknowledge Jesus Christ as
universal Lord and Savior for all human kind; the affirmation of
homosexuality as a gift of God and homosexual behavior as a legitimate
expression of human love; the overt denial that human sexual expression
is a gift of God to be received and enjoyed only within the covenant of
marriage between one man and one woman; and the sidelining of Scripture
and our Confessions as irrelevant in the context of modern culture and
nature.
Sebastian's Resolution of Affirmation is neither unconstitutional nor
in derogation of the polity of our Church. Instead, it is thoroughly in
keeping with Scripture, our Confessions and the Book of Order.
For spiritually serious Christians who are looking for a spiritual "safe
harbor", the Confessing Church Movement is one of the few viable
choices. In handling this matter the Permanent Judicial Commission must
exercise care that it does not deliberately undermine a spiritual
stronghold in the denomination. Untoward actions by this Commission
could drive a vibrant, enthusiastic and financially committed community
from the Church. This would be a grievous mistake.
I HEREBY CERTIFY That the original of this document has been
provided by hand delivery this ______ day of February, 2002, to: Dr.
Dale L. Heaton, Moderator of PJC, 1865 Friar's Court, Titusville, FL
32796; and a copy has been provided to: Norman F. Blessing, 729 Horizon
Terrace, Sebastian, FL 32958-6525; John Coventry Smith, Jr., Esq., 306
Palmetto Lane, Largo, FL 33770, Attorney for Mr. Blessing; David C.
Smith, Kilpatrick Stockton, 1001 W. 4yh St., Winston-Salem, NC
21701-2400, Co-Counsel for Mr. Blessing; Rev. Alan J. Pickering, Stated
Clerk, Presbytery of Tampa Bay, 720 N. Shore Drive, N.E., St.
Petersburg, FL 33701-2622, Co-Counsel for Mr. Blessing; Mindy Serafin,
Clerk of Session, First Presbyterian Church of Sebastian, P.O. Box
781689, Sebastian, FL 32978-1689; and to Reverend Eleanor B. Lea, 103
Harbor Point Drive, Sebastian, FL 32958.
Wilson, Garber & Small, P.A.
437 N. Magnolia Avenue
Orlando, FL 32801
(407) 843-4321
BY: _______________________________
J. Christy Wilson, III
|