Constitutional crisis may lead to the 'onset of chaos' An open letter to the Presbyterian Church (USA) By Rev. Scott Mackey Fort Worth, Texas Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Back prior to the reunion of the Northern and Southern Presbyterian churches, the late John Leith wrote a paper suggesting that the reunion was a practical necessity, but not a theological one. He suggested that it offered the possibility of bringing about renewal, though he considered it unlikely unless certain commitments were made. The first of those commitments was to recover the authenticity of the church court or judicatory system. He was concerned about governing bodies embodying genuine representation of the people in the churches. John tended to voice his concerns in terms of having people being involved with the governing bodies of the church who had demonstrated competence in building up churches, raising an abundance of mission funds, and other somewhat practical evidences of a person's having a positive influence on the people in real congregations. And I believe his concern was and is valid. However, I sense that the problem is greater than just a question of competence. Theological diversity in the Presbyterian church has become pluralist instead of diversity in unity. Liberals like to claim unity for their diversity, but too much of what centuries of faithful Christian congregations and thinkers have called heresy or out of the bounds of Christian faith have now come sneaking back in. Pluralistic diversity, which includes heresy, means that some churches, presbyteries and synods – and even an occasional General Assembly – are often drastically unrepresentative of the majority of the churches of the Presbyterian church. That is how an almost two-thirds majority of presbyteries could reject the latest attempt to remove the fidelity and chastity requirement for ordination; yet, still we see open defiance of that standard with no disciplinary action yet taken. Some counsel that we should wait and see, the constitution might yet be upheld and the church courts prove themselves authentic and acting for the whole church as defined by the constitution. They say that until the courts fail and the constitution is proven null and void, we do not have a constitutional crisis. On one level, I agree. The real crisis is another aspect of John's paper, namely that in every age there is some issue or issues which the church or large segments of the church are blind to, even if such issues were previously and will subsequently be seen to have been of an obvious nature to almost everyone. And while it is likely that both sides in our current theological debates are afflicted with such blindness, such blindness can also lead to deafness. We don't see or hear what one another is actually saying. We cry out for unity in Jesus Christ, but we are not united as to who Jesus Christ is and what is the fullness of His teaching. So, the blindness and deafness continues. In such times, our only meaningful unity is our constitutional connectedness. Yet, this requires obedience to the constitution and a submission to it even while in disagreement with it. Until God gives all of us new eyes, and we see the same reality clearly as one again, some must submit to rules they consider onerous and perhaps even unrighteous. If they cannot, then out of respect for the constitution and the unity it represents, they should peacefully withdraw. To allegedly remain "Presbyterian" and yet defy the constitution and ignore the lawful processes by which it, however imperfectly, is amended and administered, is to make meaningless the very name seeking to be retained. If church A illegally ordains a person, then church B cannot be imagined to have to honor that action. The so-called higher principle by which church A ordains is then equally trumped by any higher principle which church B wishes to assert over against church A's ordinations. If a principle of "local option" obtains, then no single church acts for the whole church any more. Even the actions of presbyteries become parochial and subject to change from presbytery to presbytery. One would wonder why a General Assembly should ever be called again, and why any kind of national denominational office and staff should exist. Let everyone do what is right in their own eyes and let churches choose their cooperative ventures according to their own groupings and desires. That is how a theological crisis becomes constitutional. One wishes the defiant churches were a little more bold and defiant, and would respect the constitution by going out from it and trying to make a new affiliation of their own. Instead, they have chosen to claim to remain within the constitutional fold by defying it according to their own chosen higher principles. If the constitution is to have any resemblance to the meaning it once had, then disciplinary actions must be taken to void the ordinations of the defiant officers and either bring defiant churches into obedience or excommunicate them from the denomination. One can imagine the bad publicity and the civil lawsuits. But if nothing is done, one can only expect further defiance – though of a different nature. Money for general assemblies and for having a national staff will dry up. That may also be true for some presbyteries. There will likely be a gradual onset of chaos. Evangelical churches are not going to continue to support national structures that will not stand for what they believe. They will not obey mandates to give money, nor to obey any subsequent rules which might be put in a new Book of Order trumped up by illegitimate rump assemblies and shadow presbyteries. Presbyterian seminaries will have to become unaffiliated seminaries seeking financial support from wherever they can, and the same for Presbyterian colleges (although they already are more secularly supported and governed.) Which brings me back to John's paper. The final commitment necessary for renewal in the PC (USA) is a return to faith – a return to a sense of the reality of God, the Bible as the Word of God, and of the church as a worshipping and believing community in historical continuity with the catholicity of the Christian faith as it has been witnessed through the centuries. (See Pilgrimage of a Presbyterian: Collected Shorter Writings by John H. Leith, "Church Union: A Practical Necessity but Not the Critical Issue Confronting Presbyterians.")

Respond to this article

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