 Word games  The Layman – Volume 38, Number 4 – Posted October 26, 2005
Its task was to help us “discern” issues underlying the turmoil in our denomination. To discern means testing particular claims against a standard in order to distinguish what is good and true and useful from what is evil and false and useless. The report fails to aid the PCUSA because it uses Biblical words without defining the Biblical standards behind them. So we are like Alice in Wonderland where words can mean whatever we want them to mean. The report obscures rather than clarifies. For instance, in the section on sexuality (IIIC), the report says it “explored a range of opinions” and a “diverse collection of theological … writings.” It commends the process because it “deepened our understanding,” but does not present a single text of Scripture, let alone a “range” of texts, to give us God’s view for evaluating the “opinions.” When the report asserts that those who want to be ordained as church officers must lead “faithful” lives and not be “licentious,” it gives no Biblical explanation of what those terms mean. Thus, it seems to set boundaries but in fact does not; readers may use the terms as they please. A second example of sporting with words is in Recommendation 5 (Section V). Although stating that it doesn’t intend to “change” ordination standards in either G-6.0106b (requiring that officers be faithful in marriage between a man and woman or chaste in singleness) or the Authoritative Interpretation of 1978 and 1993 on sexual behavior, nine lines later the report proposes how those standards could be overruled by an ordaining body. The report tries to justify this disregard by alleging “confusion” about how the discretion given to ordaining bodies in G-6.0108 relates to G-6.0106b. That claim obscures the true situation: the church has spoken at least four times in the last nine years that governing bodies are forbidden from ordaining people who do not obey the behavior of G-6.0106b. The church made its decision clear in 1997, 1998, and 2002 when presbyteries voted to keep that standard and in 2000 when the Judicial Commission in the Londonderry case spoke to that very issue. Another instance of mischaracterization that belies reality is the PUP report’s claim in Recommendation #5 that the new authoritative interpretation it proposes is not “new,” but rather is a “reemphasis of traditional [Presbyterian] principles.” That assertion ignores the historically articulated and still-controlling understanding of how essential standards for ordination are determined: the report of the Special Commission of 1925. That commission said that requirements can be set only by explicit constitutional amendment; once set, every ordaining body must obey them. Furthermore, the commission proffered this understanding as the one that has served the denomination for the last 200 years. We were reminded of this principle by members of the Judicial Commission in the 1995 Central Presbyterian case; those members said that the Authoritative Interpretation of 1978 and 1993 was deficient for setting binding ordination standards because they had not been incorporated by amendment into the constitution. It was this observation which moved presbyteries to enact G-6.0106b in 1997. So, the PUP statement purporting to strengthen our existing tradition is off by 180 degrees. As Christians, we live by words – the words of God: the worlds were framed by the word of God (Gen. 1, Heb. 11:3); bread alone does not sustain us but every word from the mouth of the Lord (Deut.8:3); the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth (John 1:14). As the body of Christ, the church is not, in the deep and serious things of God, to play games with words or the Word. The PUP report does. In doing so, it fails the church and her Lord and God. Peggy Hedden, an elder in Columbus, Ohio, is the chairman of the Board of Directors of the Presbyterian Lay Committee. |
||
| Respond
to this article Previous columns by the PLC chair Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||
