Excerpts from
complainant's brief
Monday, September
2, 2002
- "The Sebastian Session had no authority under the Book
of Order to adopt a 'confession' binding on its church officers,
the exclusive authority for adoption of confessional statements
being granted to the General Assembly and Presbyteries. Moreover,
the 'confession' imposed ordination requirements for church officers
and members which are inconsistent with the Book of Order."
- "Our Constitution does not permit the adoption by a session
of a confession which seeks to limit participation by members in the
life of the church. The respondent adopted a confession binding on
church officers and ministers and did not simply engage in an 'act
of confessing.'"
- "… in adopting and implementing the confession,
Respondent attempted to create not simply a 'personal confession,'
but a confession in the constitutional sense – one to which all
those who have been ordained as leaders in the church must adhere or
withdraw from communion."
- In the Presbyterian Church, it is only the General Assembly, with
the concurrence of two-thirds of the Presbyteries of the
denomination, that have the authority to adopt a confession that is
binding on church members.
- The Sebastian resolution ("confession," according to
the complainant) "exceeds the authority of the respondent by
placing limitations on the ordination of church officers."
- "Our Constitution requires that all church officers
profess their adherence to the fundamental beliefs of our
denomination. Those who are nominated for the office of elder must
respond to nine Constitutional questions [G-14.0207] … It is
only these nine broad affirmations to which the Presbyterian Church
requires its prospective elders to subscribe for service within the
Church."
- The Sebastian resolution is "inconsistent with the
ordination vows set forth in the Book of Order … In
this regard, the second resolution of the "confession"
provides: 'Holy Scripture is the revealed Word of the triune God,
and the Church's only infallible rule of faith and life..' However,
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."
- "The Book of Order does not mandate that church
officers profess the 'infallibility' of Scripture. Rather, that term
is reserved for our Lord. Under G-14.0207b, we accept the Scriptures
'by the Holy Spirit,' a term that guarantees our freedom of
conscience in that each person may receive the Spirit differently.
Moreover, the witness of Scripture is always to 'Jesus Christ' who
is the 'living word.'"
- "The Sebastian session has erred in attempting to require
church officers to submit to prescribed empirical standards derived
from the Confessions, which practice has been rejected by our
General Assembly."
- "The Sebastian session has further violated the Book of
Order by attempting to remove a properly ordained and installed
elder."
- "Mr. Blessing was elected by the congregation of First
Presbyterian to the Sebastian Session. He acknowledged the
ordination vows set forth in G-14.0207 at the time of his
installation and has continued to adhere to the fundamental
principles set forth in those vows. However, on May 22, 2001, the
Sebastian Session sought to impose a new condition on his service as
an elder – subscription to its confession. The 'confession' …
is significantly different from the theological principles he
acknowledged at the time of his ordination. The respondent has now
insisted that if Mr. Blessing does not affirm the confession, he
must withdraw from service."
- "The broadening of our views of Scripture, thus, lead to a
recognition that not all of us must agree to the same thing on
matters 'that are not essential to our reformed faith.' This is
reflected in the changes we have made to our ordination vows over
the years. Accordingly, no longer do we pledge that Scripture is
'infallible,' but rather that it is 'by the Holy Spirit, the unique
and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ.' Similarly, no longer do
we adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith as 'containing the
system of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture,' but we agree to be
'instructed' and "guided" by our confessions
- "The Respondent's contention that the February 20 order
limited its ability to examine candidates for office is similarly
flawed. Respondent suggests that the presbytery PJC prohibited it
from making 'any inquiry of those seeking ordination or installation
as officers beyond the nine questions set forth in G-14.0207.'
However, Respondent's argument is a gross mischaracterization of the
order of the presbytery PJC.
- "In a last ditch effort to sustain its appeal, Respondent
argues it did not receive a fair trial. In support of this argument
it recites a litany of errors allegedly made by the presbytery PJC."
- "Respondent presented no evidence justifying the recusal of
the moderator."
- "In support of its argument that it was prejudiced at trial,
Respondent states that Mr. Blessing 'was allowed to file an amended
complaint on January 30, 2002, less than three weeks before trial.'
However, once again, Respondent has distorted the record. … he
submitted a trial brief in anticipation of the February 20 hearing.
It is this that Respondent seeks to characterize as an 'amendment.'"
- "Witnesses were, in fact, sworn in at trial by the
chairperson of the permanent judicial commission. While not
reflected in the transcript, at the inception of the trial, the
chairperson had each person who was expected to testify to be sworn
in. While Mr. Franzen, Respondent's counsel, was not present at the
hearing and could not discern this from the record, Respondent was
represented by good and competent counsel, Mr. Wilson, at trial. Had
such an error been made, Mr. Wilson certainly would have pointed
this out to the presbytery PJC."
- "As reflected by the record, the presbytery PJC was patient
and thoughtful in its consideration of the evidence. It is
Respondent's own conduct, if any, that served to impair the
integrity of the judicial process. There being no indication in the
record of any undue prejudice to Respondent, its appeal on these
grounds should be rejected as well."
- The primary issues presented by this appeal are of central
importance for they concern one of the paramount foundations of our
denomination – the right of a member to exercise the freedom of
religious belief within the bounds of our reformed faith. Our Book
of Order, through its ordination vows, has carefully maintained
a balance between our freedom to interpret Scripture and the
doctrinal unity of the Church. Respondent now seeks to upset that
balance by ignoring the Book of Order and unconstitutionally
limiting that which we as officers and members of the Church may
believe. Its actions must be rejected.
|