A possible way forward An open letter to the Presbyterian Church (USA) By Rev. Doug Pratt Senior Pastor Memorial Park Church Allison Park, Pa. Thursday, December 26, 2002 The gravest problem that the Presbyterian Church (USA) faces today – and, indeed, has ever faced in its 18-year existence – is the refusal of certain governing bodies to enforce and fulfill the requirements of the church's constitution. The semantic quibbling over whether this problem constitutes a "crisis," a "conundrum," a "challenge" or any other label suggested is completely beside the point. We clearly face a threat to our unified future as a denomination. Laws in any human institution or society are only as reliable as the integrity and trustworthiness of those who have been given the power to enforce them. A constitution that people in authority choose to ignore or selectively enforce is not worth the trees slaughtered to print it. The frustration that many who love and are committed to our church face at this moment is the seeming absence of any solution to our problem. Are the only possible alternatives before us either a dissolution of our union or a fragmentation into different types of Presbyterian churches in different regions? Is there any way to solve this dilemma and preserve the constitution? Or is our institution doomed? I believe there is a way forward within our constitutional framework. It will require amending a section of the Book of Order. That section, G-6.0502, currently reads as follows: "When a church officer, after consultation and notice, persists in a work disapproved by the governing body having jurisdiction, the governing body may presume that the officer has renounced the jurisdiction of this church" (emphasis added). The amendment should replace the above reading with the following: "When a church officer, after consultation and notice, persists in a work disapproved by the church, the governing body having jurisdiction shall presume that the officer has renounced the jurisdiction of this church." The most significant change this amendment would bring is to convert "may presume" to "shall presume" (replacing a permissive word with a directive word). In addition, the revised wording makes it clear that individual governing bodies are bound by the policies and directives of the larger church, and cannot contradict or ignore what the higher bodies have said (for example, a session or presbytery has no constitutional right to decide what parts of the constitution it will not obey). The primary objection that would be raised to this amendment – in debates at a general assembly and in the presbyteries – would be that it takes away the discretion that traditionally has been afforded to governing bodies. The primary rationale for the change is that governing bodies recently have been abusing that discretion. Some are blatantly and boldly ignoring the constitutional requirements for ordination. Whenever a person or group abuses a privilege, it should not be surprised when that privilege is taken away. Why would this action change the landscape of the Presbyterian Church )USA)? It would remove the matters under current dispute from the judicial system (with its tedious process of hearings, rulings and appeals) and place the decision of whether or not we will remain as a unified church in the hands of our most representative legislative bodies: the general assembly, followed by the votes of all the presbyteries. Absent this clear and definitive opportunity to chart our future course, we will be leaving our denomination's outcome in the hands of a small group of people serving on permanent judicial commissions. Our "Historic Principles of Church Government" (G-1.0400) require that "a larger part of the Church, or a representation of it, should govern a smaller, or determine matters of controversy which arise therein. . .", and that important matters should "be finally decided by the collected wisdom and united voice of the whole Church." The time has come to let the whole Presbyterian Church (USA) decide the fate and future of its constitution.

Respond to this article

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