 What does it mean to adopt nonexistent ‘essential’ tenets? By John H. Adams The Layman Volume 35, Number 2 Posted April 8, 2002
As a matter of fact, there are none, the General Assembly of 1997 declared. But the issue continues to crop up in the Confessing Church Movement; the decision of a presbytery court declaring that Confessing Church resolutions are illegal; the considerations of the denomination’s Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity, and the interpretative analyses of the PCUSA Constitution by the Office of the Stated Clerk – as well as other venues. Essentially meaningless The most recent editions of The Book of Confessions include a 20-page report titled “Confessional Nature of the Church Report.” While the report is positioned before the 11 confessions and sets the tone for how Presbyterians should view them, it is not part of the confessional documents themselves. Amending a confession or including a new confession requires a super-majority approval from at least two thirds of the presbyteries. “Confessional Nature of the Church Report” was never submitted to a referendum. It was merely a report received by the 1997 General Assembly, and was placed in The Book of Confessions by questionable authority. The report regards the confessions as a license for freedom rather than a compendium of essential tenets. Free to be ‘instructed’ … “The ordination question that asks for commitment to the ‘essential tenets’ of the confessions brings freedom in the church at several levels,” the report says. “Ordained persons are free to be ‘instructed,’ ‘led,’ and ‘continually guided’ by the confessions without being forced to subscribe to any precisely worded articles of faith drawn up either by the General Assembly or by a presbytery.”
The effect of the report is to elevate the nine Book of Order questions candidates must answer at ordination over the substance of the confessions themselves. That seems contradictory to the traditional ranking of authorities in the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition – first, Jesus Christ as “the Scriptures bear witness to him;” second, Scripture; third, the confessions; fourth, the Book of Order; and, last, declarations by and reports to the General Assembly. Conflicting issues The report also seems to conflict with theology that is rooted in Scripture, the confessions and polity and affirmed in national referendums in the denomination – including the standards for sexual behavior. It discounts the witness of the confessions by declaring, “The theology and ethics of confessions of every age are shaped by what seem to be the normative or preferable sexual, familial, social, economic, cultural, and political patterns of a particular period of history … Despite all good intentions, they have also distorted the truth revealed in Jesus Christ, been unable to grasp parts of the Biblical witness to God’s presence and work in Christ, and divided the church into churches with conflicting views of what Christian faith and life are all about.” Later, the report adds that Christians who wrote the confessions were “influenced by the sexual, racial, and economic biases and by the scientific and cultural limitations of a particular situation,” which is the thrust of the argument made by advocates for ordaining unrepentant, practicing homosexuals. Those advocates said Scripture, the confessions and the Book of Order contained outdated cultural taboos, not divine mandates.
Taboo word: Fundamental The report even uses the taboo word: fundamental. “In every time and place the church is called to make the implications of its fundamental confession of the Lordship of Jesus Christ unmistakably clear and relevant.” Furthermore, it describes the confessions as “the church’s means of preserving the authenticity and purity of its faith” – without offering any suggestion about what constitutes authenticity and purity. So what does it mean when a presbytery ordains a minister or a session ordains an elder or deacon – someone who must “receive” and “adopt” nonexistent essential tenets? “In a presbytery the decision for ordination is always determined by the concrete encounter between the presbytery and the candidate,” the report says. “Presbyteries (in the case of ministers) and church sessions (in the case of elders and deacons) are free to decide for themselves what acceptable loyalty to the confessions means in their particular situation without being bound to any ‘check list’ prescribed by higher governing bodies of the church.’” Guided by ambiguity Many Presbyterians seem guided by the ambiguity and self-contradictions of the report, which, despite its denials, seems to repudiate the very oaths officers are required to take and the historic role of confessions. The report also seems to collide with another constitutional provision – one that was approved by presbyteries. “While confessional standards are subordinate to the Scriptures, they are, nonetheless, standards,” says the Book of Order (Chapter 2). “They are not lightly drawn up or subscribed to, nor may they be ignored or dismissed. The church is prepared to counsel with or even to discipline one ordained who seriously rejects the faith expressed in the confessions.” Ironically, Chapter 2 contains a number of tenets that had long been considered foundational – and often described as “essential,” until the 1997 General Assembly took that word out of the confessional lexicon. |
||||
| Theology
that Matters index Respond to this article |
||||
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||||
