Sebastian case is argued; decision due in a few days By John H. Adams The Layman Online Thursday, September 12, 2002 updated 9/13/02 JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – A synod court of the Presbyterian Church (USA) listened to arguments, asked a few questions and adjourned Thursday afternoon to begin writing its decision in the only denominationwide test of the legitimacy of resolutions adopted by sessions identifying with the Confessing Church Movement. The decision should be available early next week. The thrust of the resolution is that 1) Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior for the world; 2) Scripture is the infallible Word of God; and 3) Biblical standards for holy living have not been usurped by contemporary culture. Allen Pedrick, moderator of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the South Atlantic, told The Layman Online that a decision would be written by today and sent by registered mail to counsel for both sides in Blessing v. the Session of First Presbyterian Church of Sebastian, Fla. Infallible Scripture a key issue Attorney David Smith of Winston-Salem, N.C. representing Norman Blessing, the Sebastian elder who filed the action, argued that the resolution – and particularly its reference to the "infallible" Word of God – was essentially a new confessional statement that violates Presbyterian polity because it was not adopted by the whole denomination. The only legitimate reason for a session to reject someone who has been elected to a session is when that person fails to answer correctly the nine questions constitutionally required of all officers, he said. But Christopher Wilson III, representing the Sebastian session, argued that the Book of Order, in fact, requires sessions to dig deeper into a candidate's suitability for service in a specific congregation. Quoting from G-14.0207, he said Presbyterian polity requires a church's session to examine candidates for office concerning their "personal faith; knowledge of doctrine, government and discipline … and the duties of office." Besides, Wilson said, Blessing was never rejected as a member of the session or prohibited from performing his duties as an elder, although documents filed on Blessing's behalf claimed otherwise. Elder not denied right to serve Wilson cited the transcript of Blessing's testimony during the trial before the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of Central Florida. The synod court was hearing the case on appeal from the presbytery court, which ordered the Sebastian session to rescind its Confessing Church resolution. Responding to the complainant's allegation that Blessing, his wife and some of their friends were asked to leave the Sebastian church if they could not agree with the session's resolution, Wilson read from the transcript questions and answers from the presbytery trial. "I asked Mr. Blessing, has there been any effort to keep you off the session? The answer was 'No.' Have you been denied any of your rights as a session member? 'Not me personally.'" Wilson said he asked Mrs. Blessing, who has left the Sebastian church, "Were you ever asked to resign as moderator of the Women of the Church? 'No, I was never asked to resign.'" Wilson also cited the testimony of a friend of the Blessings, who also said she had not been asked to leave the church and that she had a "very loving relationship" with the Rev. Eleanor Lea, pastor of the Sebastian congregation. Standard not retroactive With that testimony, Wilson was arguing that the Sebastian resolution was not a retroactive requirement for elders already in office. He said that the suggestion that the Blessings might leave the congregation were made because Blessing continued to protest the resolution at a number of session meetings. Blessing also complained that he was excluded from one session meeting, but Wilson argued that the reason he was excluded was that the session was meeting to discuss the complaint Blessing had filed against his colleagues. "I disagree with Mr. Wilson that there was no intent to enforce this confession," Smith said. "On June 12 [2001], Mr. Blessing was told that if he did not consent to this motion, he had to peacefully withdraw from the church." Smith argued that the resolution forces Blessing to subscribe to an ordination standard that was not part of the oath of his office – the nine questions all ministers, elders and deacons in the PCUSA are required to answer affirmatively before they can be ordained and installed. He focused on the word "infallible" in the resolution and declared that the Presbyterian Church no longer requires officers to believe that the Bible is infallible. Infallible a confessional standard Infallible is a term in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which was the confessional standard for American Presbyterians for more than 200 years. In 1967, however, the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church (USA) adopted the Confession of 1967 and, today, The Book of Confessions contains 11 creedal statements. In 1969, Smith said, the UPCUSA General Assembly revised the ordination vows listed in the Book of Order to exclude "infallible" from a candidate's oath of office. The current language of the oath "accepts Scripture as the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ," Smith said. "The Book of Order does not mandate the infallibility of Scripture. The constitution does not mandate that our churches believe in the infallibility of Scripture." Bill Scheu, a member of the synod court from the Presbytery of St. Augustine, questioned Smith about the right of sessions to question candidates on matters not covered by the oath of office. "Help me understand," Scheu said, "does the session have the right to examine elders?" "My concern is 'infallibility,'" Smith answered. "Under our Book of Order, we agree that we will be guided and led by the essential tenets. The confessions do not agree whether Scripture is falliable or infallible." "Does it boil down to your definition of infallible?" Scheu continued. "Could a session consider the different viewpoints of theologians in examining candidates so that there are different perspectives on infallibility?" Smith continued to insist that sessions had no right to insist on infallibility as a Presbyterian standard for ordination. The authority of documents Wilson, however, argued that the Book of Order is not the highest authority for Presbyterians. The highest authority, he said, is Scripture, followed by The Book of Confessions and then the Book of Order. He noted that a general assembly must have the concurrence of two-thirds of the presbyteries to make a change in The Book of Confessions. The Book of Order can be revised with the concurrence of a simple majority of the presbyteries. Wilson said Sebastian was not alone in adopting a Confessing Church statement. "The Sebastian session and others (1,276) believe it is necessary to affirm their faith. They're under attack." He cited the ReImagining God movement in which "the transcendence of God was involved … the failure of our denomination to recognize Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Savior. The Sebastian church not only has a right, but also has a responsibility to do this. Officers are appointed for the preservation of truth." Besides, he added, the statements in the Confessing Church resolution are "entirely consistent" with Scripture and The Book of Confessions. "The issue before this panel is strictly a constitutional one," Smith told the eight-member synod court. "Des the session have the right to adopt a confession to which its church officers must subscribe? That's what our constitution does not permit."

Respond to this article

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