 Discipline matters  The Layman – Volume 35, Number 5 – Posted October 2002
Increasing numbers of church officers and bodies are contemptuous of self-discipline and voluntary compliance with their vows. Proclaiming their choice to be governed by their imperial selves, they announce they will not uphold our constitutional ordination standards. Despite prolonged consultation and due notice of those standards, their words and actions are defiance – they persist in works disapproved by their governing bodies, and the church should “presume that (they have) renounced the jurisdiction of this church.” (G-6.0502). The failure of sessions and presbyteries to invoke administrative and/or disciplinary remedies for such contumacy is creating what many call a “constitutional crisis” or “constitutional bankruptcy.” The looming crisis was predictable when the entrenched leadership persuaded the 2002 General Assembly not to take any action to enforce existing PJC decisions precluding defiance of the ordination standards. The stated clerk’s recent belated reminder is commendable, but insufficient. He admonished all governing bodies to “take seriously the requirements of the rules of discipline. The process must be honored if the integrity of our judicial system is to be maintained. The Constitution protects the right of dissent, but it provides no right of defiance.” The clerk should have given that advice to the 2002 G.A.’s commissioners because they had the authority and opportunity to deal effectively with the evolving crisis. Regrettably, neither the clerk’s recent letter (nor the advice offered to the G.A.) outlines our constitutional duties of discipline, which ought to motivate the whole church to deal forthrightly with unrepentant defiance. It is fundamental contract law that a failure to honor material requirements of a contract excuses other parties from performance of other obligations of that contract. If the PCUSA constitution remains unenforced within the church on the fundamental ecclesial matter of ordination standards, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce it in civil courts on the non-fundamental, non-ecclesial matter of ownership of church property. Unraveling of the fragile fabric of our governance will surely follow. We live in an undisciplined age, where culture exalts the imperial self over the duties of responsible citizens in a free society. Lack of self-discipline and community responsibility increasingly erode decency in civil society and threaten the destruction of free society. Regrettably, our church is reflecting – not affecting – culture by our own lack of commitment to the virtues of self and corporate discipline. Since our national leaders will not clearly and forcefully demonstrate what must be done to deal with our impending crisis, it becomes the duty of the rest of the church to do so. We must remind the church that discipline matters. Loving discipline is one of God’s good gifts. Scripture repeatedly reveals how God called and shaped “no people” into His people. Every wise parent learns that loving discipline to instill the virtue of self-discipline is essential to shape rebellious children into responsible adults. Every responsible leader learns that corporate discipline becomes essential, when self-discipline fails, if the mission of the enterprise is to be accomplished. More than 20 years of study, discussion, prayer and three churchwide referendums have discerned the mind of Christ on ordination standards, insofar as God’s spirit has enabled us to do so. We have discharged “our Biblical obligation to conciliate, mediate and adjust differences” through “prayerful deliberation.” It is now the duty of the whole church to proceed by forthright administrative action and by the Rules of Discipline as “necessary to preserve the purity and purposes of the church.” (D-1.0103) “Thus, the purpose of church discipline is to honor God by making clear the significance of membership in the body of Christ; to preserve the purity of the church by nourishing the individual within the life of the believing community; to correct or restrain wrongdoing in order to bring members to repentance and restoration; to restore the unity of the church by removing the causes of discord and division …” (D-1.0101 emphasis added.) Ministers and elders proclaiming they will not abide by our ordination standards should be presumed to have renounced jurisdiction of this church. (G-6.0502) “Renunciation of jurisdiction shall remove the officer from membership and ordained office and shall terminate the exercise of office” (G-6.0500 emphasis added). If the responsible governing body fails to discharge its duty by administrative action or by disciplinary proceedings, it becomes the duty of the next higher body to take corrective action. If a presbytery fails to recognize defiance as renunciation of jurisdiction and fails to remove administratively from office those in contempt of ordination standards, sessions and individual elders have a duty to institute disciplinary proceedings against the defiant offender by filing their written statement of the alleged offense(s). (D-10.0102) Failing responsible action by all lower governing bodies, the 2003 G.A. will have no choice. It must then remove defiant officers and derelict presbytery officers. We pray that such an ultimate crisis will be avoided. It will be if we understand – discipline matters. Only discipline will forestall the collapse of the PCUSA. Robert L. Howard of Wichita, Kan., is chairman of the Presbyterian Lay Committee. |
||
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||
