Open letter Archives of letters to the editor

Open letter on PUP report An objection also to what the task force does not say By Rev. Steven L. Seng The Layman Online Monday, February 6, 2006 The writer is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Wellsburg, W. Va. Last fall after the release of the PUP Final Report, I was asked by a friend and member of our presbytery if I had received a copy, read it, and what I thought of it. After an initial read, I expressed my less than optimistic view of it. What I write is directed at the content of the Report, not the work of the Task Force as a whole nor of its individual members. I know one member personally, studied under him, and know him to be a man of high integrity, intellectual acumen, and love for God and neighbor, and I have no reason to believe less of any of the others. There are many things in the report that are good, but it is my view that there also are omissions, errors, and false conclusions. Succinctly put, I believe acceptance and implementation of the report and its recommendations, in the least #5, would be detrimental to the peace, unity, purity, and future of Christ's church. Part of my objection is to what the report does not say. Lines 25ff speak to our Christian identity and rightly affirms the three convictions that we believe that the Triune God "loves us, saves us, and empowers us with a calling and a mission." But nothing is said about God's transformation. Jesus did not save us from sin only to leave us in sin, but also to give us an alternative to it. Sanctification is the earthly counterpart of the heavenly transformation that awaits those who rightly believe and follow him. Jesus indeed met people where they were, but he also invited them to join him on a transformational journey away from and out of sin. Line 30 tells us the three convictions are the basis for their response. It thus seems that if the transformational issue is not considered from the outset, the report would in the end somehow be flawed. Line 182f claims that, in the context of nations, peoples, color, class, etc., "God refuses to live on one side or the other of these humanly conceived boundaries." In many ways, this statement is true, but it also points to a misconception found in many progressive theologies – that all boundaries are human constructs and God is above them all. This conviction is (mis)applied to sexual boundaries. The progressive view claims that what is a sexual boundary for one [person or group] is not another. The fallacy of the claim is in denying the truth that God is the one who fixes boundaries for sexual activity, not humans. One is thus tempted to read the statement of lines 182-183 and (mis)apply it to other types of "boundaries" when in fact they are not human constructs. Humans do set certain types of boundaries, but Christendom has always understood it is God who has set marital, sexual and ordination boundaries. I also believe that the deficiency of the report stems from a miscommunication. Lines 262ff speaks of the task given to the Task Force. Their task involved addressing the conflict and controversy that embroils us, even conflict over Biblical authority and interpretation, Christology, ordination standards, and power. Furthermore, it is stated that, "The task force was not asked to resolve all the controversial issues in the church or to relieve the church of all conflict. Rather, the task force was asked to help the church deal with current and future conflicts more faithfully." (416-419) Of course no one has expected them to "resolve" "all" of the issues or conflict. But the fuller truth is that there was expectation that the Task Force and their work would, in the end, offer us some sort of relief or resolution to the conflict and issues. We've had conversation and struggle over ordination and sexuality issues for more than three decades and the prospect of more of the same is not appealing; and, in fact, is the cause of many churches and individuals voting with their feet. We Presbyterians are keen on conversation, and that's a good thing, but there comes a time, barring new discoveries or insights, when decisions must be made and stances taken. Furthermore, the report claims "The task force was not asked to take a position on human sexuality or ordination and we have not attempted to do so." I cannot comment on what they specifically were or were not asked to do, but many of us were led to believe that some of resolution would, in the end, be forthcoming. Another significant problem I have with the report is found in lines 520ff. The task force's study on sexuality yielded the insight that, "The theological and Biblical literature on human sexuality in general and same-gender sexuality in particular is diverse, subtle, and complex. It could not readily be divided into the two categories – either approval or disapproval of same-gender relationships and practices – that are assumed to anchor much of the conflict in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) today." Not everyone agrees with all that is stated therein. Sexuality is in some ways complex, but it simply is not true that the Bible does not register disapproval of same-sex relationships and practices. The Bible is consistent in its disapproval and condemnation of same-sex relationships. My greatest objection involves recommendation #5, its wording and seeming implications (1028ff). The Task Force recommends GA 2006 approve the Authoritative Interpretation the report offers. Recommendation #5, in part, reads: "The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government of the Book of Order set forth the Scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation." "These standards are determined by the whole church, after the careful study of Scripture and theology, solely by the constitutional process of approval by the General Assembly with the approval of the Presbyteries." "Ordaining and installing bodies ... have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards to those elected to office." All of these statements are acceptable and are currently the case. The Authoritative Interpretation is further defined or applied in the two statements which follow. The determination for membership includes assessing "Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation.... has departed from Scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office." But then comes the caveat: "Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity....." (my emphasis added) introduces a seemingly benign concept to the proposed Interpretation. The injection of this concept into the equation in fact radically alters whatever recommendation #5 otherwise would be. The term "essentials" or any of its derivatives (essential doctrines, essential standards, etc.) are found in a number of places in the recommendations. What makes this seemingly benign addition so altering of current polity and practice is that it gives ordaining bodies unprecedented latitude in determining a candidate's fitness for ordination. Before, if a candidate was found to be in violation of a standard, no governing body had authorization or right to determine that the departure could be overlooked. If polity were properly adhered to, a departure from a given standard signaled the unfitness of the candidate and that was that. But now, a governing body simply has the latitude to determine if a departure is or is not "essential." As there is no official or authoritative list of what constitutes what is "essential" and what is not, it seems to me one can only conclude that what is essential is a matter of local option. Although some report language asserts that local option is not inferred, the end product appears to in fact do so. It seems to me that we will only have further fodder for acrimonious debate, decision making, and litigation. Simply put, on the one hand it is claimed that it is the whole church which sets he standards, but then it is given to a given ordaining body to determine whether a standard is essential or not. You can't have it both ways as the simple dismissal of a standard by deeming it not to be "essential" destroys it as a standard. It should be noted that the people in the pews have spoken at least twice to what would have been local option, the latest following, and in response to, GA 2001. Local option, which would have been the result of the removal of G-6.0106b, was deemed not appropriate and the acceptance of the PUP report will, at the General Assembly level (via bypassing the vote of the presbyteries), overturn what the presbyteries have twice said was not appropriate. Lines 1076, 1182, and 1185 claim that this Authoritative Interpretation will clarify constitutional and ordinational procedures. I would suggest that it will only muddle, confuse and obfuscate matters. The absence of any delineation of what constitutes "essential" will inevitably pit presbytery against presbytery within a given synod and church against church within presbytery boundaries. On the local level, disagreeing individuals will be pitted against one another as they see churches of the opposite persuasion acting in direct opposition to their own view or that of their home church's; and even churches across presbytery boundaries. In short, it will be very divisive and a significant step toward congregationalism, or even defection. There are Covenant Network voices rejecting the report because one recommendation is that there be no change to our constitution, and "to remove no existing Authoritative Interpretations" (1308) whereas one of the Covenant Network's primary goals is the full elimination of G-6.0106b and an overturning of the AI of 1978. Similarly, yet differently, there are renewal voices who understand that the end result of the proposed change will be an emasculation of the Biblical and historical standard, at least as far as the spirit of the law goes, if not the letter. The recommendations attempt to make no substantive change, while at the same time making enough substantive change to satisfy both sides, but as voiced by the objections, such will not be the case. One of the voids of the report has to do with one of its original charges. GA 2001 (Minutes Journal, Part I, p. 29) instructed the Task Force to "to develop a process and an instrument (my emphasis added) by which congregations and governing bodies throughout our church may reflect on and discuss the matters that unite and divide us, praying that the Holy Spirit will promote the peace, unity, and purity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)." My question is what and where is this process and instrument they were to construct and make available to us? I want to close with a few details of my brief experience with the Task Force presentation at Westminster College in October 2005. Near the end of the seminar there was a half-hour question and answer period. I asked the question, "Given that a significant number of churches and ministers presently are openly ordaining and marrying whomever they choose, in spite and defiance of our established polity (although some presbyteries thinly feign an attempt to not allow, or address, such happenings), how is it that the report, in its entirety, and in particular, recommendation #5, will not be interpreted, or acted upon, as if it in fact does mean or allow local option?" The presenter's only response was, "That's the question." Not a word was offered expressly stating, or even hinting, that "local option" is prohibited or precluded. Acceptance of the PUP report and its Authoritative Interpretation will not make things better in my view. I believe we will no longer be a connectional church, even if we remain an organic whole. Ultimately, I believe the PUP report will further divide the church by causing schism between persons and within and between churches and presbyteries. Many foresee for us what is happening in the Episcopal Church – a further exodus of individuals and congregations. Also, it will put us at odds with the vast majority of Christendom. We have been admonished that schism as a great sin against the church. But if accepting the progressive views of sexuality and ordination severs us from the vast majority of Christendom, it would seem the resultant schism would be an even greater sin (unless only progressive Christians constitute the true church). In short, acceptance and implementation of the report just may be a large and irreversible step in a direction and into a future none of us wants.

Recent letters Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links