Legal ‘hierarchical’
claims
contrary to recent PCUSA history
By John H.
Adams
The Layman
Volume 39, Number 5
Posted November 23, 2006
When denominational and presbytery lawyers go before civil judges and
argue that the Presbyterian Church (USA) is a “hierarchical”
denomination and that its presbyteries are, in effect, “bishops,”
they’re not heeding the court’s requirement that they tell the
truth and nothing but the truth.
The “hierarchical” claim is one of the recommendations of the “privileged
and confidential” PCUSA legal strategies – a.k.a. the “Louisville
Papers.” It is intended to convince judges that the civil courts
are not entitled to rule against the PCUSA’s claim to own the
property of congregations that don’t subscribe to the
denominational leaders’ self-proclaimed concept of hierarchical
ownership.
For many Presbyterians – and not only evangelicals –
the very word “hierarchical” grates. The Reformers were
anti-hierarchical in their renunciation of the Roman Catholic Church,
and more recent documents reflect that same sentiment. Even the 2006
General Assembly’s authoritative interpretation that allows
sessions and presbyteries to ordain men and women who violate the
constitutional “fidelity/chastity” clause is
anti-hierarchical.
Some other key documents that reflect the anti-hierarchical strain are:
“Historic Principles, Conscience and Church Government,”
which was adopted by the first (1983) General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church (USA) as a guiding document for the reunion of the
former northern and southern mainline Presbyterian bodies.
On page 5 under the subhead B. Human Sin, “Historic Principles”
describes the danger of hierarchical power.
- Another theological principle which lies at the root of
Presbyterian polity is also derived from Scripture. It is the clear
understanding that all are sinners. Any individual entrusted with
very much power may well misuse that power. Individuals may only
represent the governing bodies of the church in order to carry out
the instructions or directions of the body which empowered them to
speak or act, and they are always responsible to the church body
they represent.
- Our emphasis on principles tends to differentiate Presbyterians
from those in other Christian communions. Presbyterians find the
locus of the church neither in the local congregation, as in a
congregational polity, nor in a hierarchy of authoritative
individuals, as in episcopal polity. Presbyterians believe, of
course, that God calls individuals to faith; but we believe that the
corporate life of the church is best expressed by our system of
representative governing bodies in which ordained officers act on
behalf of the church.
“The Successor to Peter” was published in 2000
and presented to and received by the General Assembly in 2001. Framed
around discussions with the Roman Catholic Church, the paper emphasizes
the difference between Catholic hierarchialism and Presbyterian
government – and the reasons for that difference. One of the major
points is that institutions (hierarchies) err.
- Even in relation to these bodies we have considerable reserve.
Our Form of Government, following the Westminster Confession of
Faith (The Book of Confessions 6.109), states that “God
alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the
doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to
his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith and worship.” (Form
of Government 1.031) The text continues, “Therefore we consider
the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect
religion, as universal and inalienable....” (Form of Government
1.0301)
- The Westminster Confession further affirms: “All synods and
councils since the apostles’ time, whether general or
particular, may err, and many have erred.” (The Book of
Confessions, 6.175) From time to time individuals rise up to
speak prophetically against the excesses and errors of the
ecclesiastical community. Presbyterians developed a republican model
for leadership in the Church, above all to guard against the
consequences of human – and conciliar – fallibility. We
generally rejected hierarchy and episcopacy on the one hand, and the
pure democracy of congregationalism on the other. There is no room
here to recount the historical events and circumstances surrounding
these decisions. But it is worth remarking that for much of our
history episcopacy has been associated in our minds with
ecclesiastical establishment and sacral monarchy. Strife between
Presbyterian Scotland and the claims of certain kings of England is
part of our history. An antipathy to episcopacy remains in the
Presbyterian ethos.
The 2001 General Assembly’s Committee on Ecumenical
Relations discussed “Successor to Peter” and PCUSA talks
with the Vatican. It re-emphasized the distinction between hierarchical
and Presbyterian government in its report.
- From this discussion and other dialogues, we find that there are
many aspects of faith and practice that we share in common, such as
belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Redeemer, and in
the Trinity. We have also faced, with candor, the differences that
still remain among others, in our understanding of the nature of the
church and the locus of its authority, the often negative judgments
made against one another in history, and particularly, the
differences in our understanding and practice of episcope. We agree
that the contemporary ecumenical spirit is part of a new situation
that enables us to address in new ways the issues which have
separated us.
Presbyterian Polity for Church Officers (Second
Edition) 1986, by Joan S. Gray and Joyce C. Tucker, Westminster/John
Knox Press, Louisville, Ky. Gray, the moderator of the 2006 General
Assembly and a former member of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial
Commission of the Presbyterian Church U.S., is considered a polity
expert. Her book has been widely used by Presbyterian seminarians. She,
too, makes a sharp distinction between a hierarchical church and
Presbyterian government. She compares three types of church government.
- Congregational Polity. Direct government of the church by the
people who make up the congregation characterizes the congregational
style of polity. The final authority on any question is the vote of
a majority of the members of that particular congregation. Each
local church is autonomous; it functions without any outside
control. Pages 3, 4.
- Episcopal Polity. This form of government takes its name from the
Greek word episkopos, literally “shepherd.” While
congregational polity gives virtually all authority to the
congregation, in episcopal polity power is lodged in the highest
ranking bishop and is delegated downward through the clergy. Pages
4, 5
- Presbyterian Polity. The name of our church, “Presbyterian,”
refers not to our doctrine or beliefs, but rather to how we govern
ourselves. Presbyterian polity takes its name from the Greek word
for elder, presbuteros. “Presbyter, an English word
derived from the Greek term, refers both to ministers of the Word
and Sacrament and elders as officers in the church. Each of our
congregations is governed by a group of presbyters elected by the
congregation and known as the session. Page 5.
|
