This post introduces a new proposed Authoritative Interpretation of the Constitution of the PCUSA that is being suggested by PFR, regarding ordination standards. This is part of PFR’s ongoing response to the Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity.
Presbyterians For Renewal has been carefully studying the report and recommendations of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church. Soon after the report was published, I posted my commentary on the work of the Task Force, and in September the PFR Board of Directors issued its response to the work of the Task Force. PFR remains committed to affirming what we can in the Task Force report, while raising serious cautions about one of its recommendations.
Indeed, while we find much to appreciate in the Task Force Report, the Task Force’s recommendation #5, the proposed Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108, is deeply troubling. In our response to the Task Force, we have outlined the concerns we have about this recommendation, which could significantly change the way our ordination standards function. We do not believe it would promote the peace, unity, and purity of the church.
Therefore, at this time, we would like to move beyond commentary and offer to the church a specific recommendation: an overture that proposes a different Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108. The Authoritative Interpretation we are proposing would introduce no change, but would instead interpret this provision of our Book of Order in a manner that is consistent with its originally intended meaning and with the way in which it has been interpreted by the courts of the church.
We urge sessions and presbyteries to consider sending this overture to the General Assembly. (You may also want to consider one of the other two overtures on ordination standards that PFR has suggested.)
In the coming months, PFR will be exploring the theme of “Keeping the Covenant.” What does it mean that we are in a covenant relationship with God through Jesus Christ? And what does it mean that we have been called to live in covenant community with one another in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)? This overture proposing an Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 is entitled “On Being Called to Covenant Community,” our first exploration of our theme.
We hope that it will not only be sent to and adopted by the General Assembly, but that it will also serve as an educational tool for those seeking to navigate the complicated recommendations proposed by the Theological Task Force. Our prayer is that God would fill us with his Holy Spirit, that we all might work together to promote the peace, unity, and purity of the church. Click here to see “On Being Called to Covenant Community.”
3 Comments Received
October 31st, 2005 @1:38 pm
May your tribe increase! You have neatly proposed a clear solution to the constitutional crisis that the PUP Report would create, and done it in a way that would, in my view, enhance the remainder of the PUP report, while remaining fully responsible to the Book of Order. Adoption of your proposal by the General Assembly would help us to avert a looming schism. My congratulations on a very good piece of work.
November 4th, 2005 @12:04 pm
Michael,
We so missed you last weekend. And I missed you! I hope we can catch up sometime soon. I got a chance to read this today and I wanted to offer my response.
Without going too deep into polity, the piece that makes me most uneasy is your assertion that there is no place for “disorder” in a covenant community. I read you as saying that there is no place for disobedience to the Book of Order. You write:
“(a) Thus, regardless of whether or not an individual or a lower governing body agrees with the constitutional standards of the church, the covenantal nature of the church requires that in practice they defer to the discernment of the majority (G-1.0400; G-4.0301e).”
The word “require” is pretty rough. Is this what you mean to institutionalize or, rather, what you wish for? I guess what I’m asking is, do you want to require this of me? Would you silence me like this?
Is there really no place within a system like ours for faithful disobedience within majority rule? Do you truly want to create a climate where obedience to majority rule is insisted upon? Michael, is such a thing even possible? Doesn’t majority rule already provide such a dis-incentive to disobedience (threat of punishment) and legitimize the exercise of power over and against the will of the minority in such a way that our concern need be with protecting the integrity of those, who, in good faith, would dissent? The scales are already tipped in a system of majority rule toward the majority. Why, then, try to conceptually de-legitimize the idea of dissent within your rubric of “covenant community?”
What is the place of a minority position in the context of majority rule? Or, more personally, who am I to you? Would you want to silence me?
I fully believe that people who represent minority positions (like myself, in this case) should be subject to due punishments for violations of the law should we act disobediently. But that, to me, is a VERY different proposition than yours–you seem to want to de-legitimize the very notion that dissent and disobedience have any role in a covenant community.
Presbyterian polity allows for majority rule–but shouldn’t the balance we strike be that of exercising just punishment for disobedience while simultaneously protecting the fundamental place of dissent and disobedience as a viable mode of critique and reform within a “covenant community”? This, to me, is the essence of the notion that God is “Lord of the conscience.”
Great work and thinking on this. Grace and peace,
DL
January 27th, 2006 @4:52 am
Would suggest anyone interested in the Task Force commentary on polity read their paper titled “Principals of Polity.” As a comment from one speaking from the pew, I found it both informative and encouraging. Although I disagree with recommendation 5, I have a better understanding of how the Task Force reached this conclusion.
Leave A Reply