Questions about scrupling and essentials are debated
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, May 12, 2006
CHICAGO – During much of their day-long questioning of five members of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity, three directors of the Presbyterian Coalition zoned in on scrupling as the task force’s way to skirt the constitutional prohibition against ordaining practicing homosexuals and adulterers.
PUP report on scruple724 The question of freedom of conscience under Scripture emerged immediately, however,
725 because some ministers of the synod considered certain articles in the standards to be at
726 variance with, or at least not explicitly enjoined by, Scripture. The synod resolved this conflict
727 of conscience by permitting these ministers and, later, candidates for the ministry to declare
728 their disagreements (“scruples”) with particular articles of the Westminster standards. It then
729 delegated to the examining body the responsibility for determining whether the candidate’s
730 disagreement concerned an essential article of the church’s “doctrine, worship or
731 government.” Although the Adopting Act was later modified, it established a precedent that
732 has heavily influenced American Presbyterians’ understanding of their confessional
734 commitments to this day. Therefore, the church has consistently maintained that certain
735 beliefs and practices are indispensable for the church’s theological integrity. At the same time,
736 “differences always have existed and been allowed … as to [the] modes of explaining and
737 theorizing within the metes and bounds of the one accepted system.” The task force proposes to the 217th General Assembly that the practice of scrupling be honored so that candidates for ordination could state their reasons for not complying with the church law. Furthermore, the task force says ordaining bodies should have the option of determining whether a candidate’s stated scruple was constitutionally allowable.
The task force report cites the Presbyterian Church’s Adopting Act of 1729, when American Presbyterians adopted the Westminster Confession and its catechisms as the standards for faith and required ministers to subscribe to them. But they also allowed ministers to declare a scruple if they could not agree with some standards. Ordaining bodies were permitted to decide whether that scruple represented a departure from an essential standard.
Scrupling hotly contested
Exactly what the Adopting Act allowed candidates to scuple was hotly contested during the Chicago meeting.
The Coalition’s Jerry Andrews said the Adopting Act specifically mentioned only two areas for scrupling, Westminster chapters 20 and 23, both of which dealt with the church’s relationship with civil magistrates and not theological or moral issues.
“That’s not our context,” Andrews said. “That context is lost. What we have now is multiple confessional standards, and now scrupling, which I think we intentionally jettisoned 40 years ago.”
Task force member Milton J. “Joe” Coalter disputed Andrews’ point. He passed out copies of the Adopting Act and declared, “Something similar to this appears in 1758. It was also picked up early in the 20th century. I don’t see where it was ever revoked. The Adopting Act as far as I can tell is still a valid point and it’s consistent with other statements about the confessions and the Book of Order. They indicate there is a difference between standards or essentials. The Book of Order is a standard.”
Nonconstitutional citation
Coalition director James R. “Jim” Tony responded: “The question is, Whose judgment is constitutional? Where is the Adopting Act enshrined in the constitution?”
G-6.0108a in the Book of OrderIt is necessary to the integrity and health of the church that the persons who serve in it as officers shall adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government. So far as may be possible without serious departure from these standards, without infringing on the rights and views of others, and without obstructing the constitutional governance of the church, freedom of conscience with respect to the interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained. Andrews: “I believe the church has a right to its own conscience. It announces its judgment in constitutional language carefully crafted. On the matter before the church, it has announced its conscience. How can the church exercise its conscience faithfully in a covenant community other than the way it has done it?”
The task force report calls for “a judgment to be made by the ordaining body [that] puts aside the conscience of the church,” Andrews said.
Task force member Barbara Wheeler argued that the Adopting Act was not limited to issues involving civil magistrates. “I think the possibility is held out that any article may be held out.”
Only two exceptions?
Andrews: “It named two.”
Task force member Mark Achtemeier argued: “It’s very clear that everything is on the table.”
Wheeler said that for some ministers asked to embrace Westminster “subscriptionism was pernicious.” The Adopting Act “provided for the ongoing life of the church in which both views were joined. The provision that was made was that any article could be scrupled.”
Achtemeier: “It seems that the tradition [of scrupling] is tailor made” for today. “The scrupling tradition attempts to seek a place for the preserved conscience. The PCA [Presbyterian Church in America] polity is exactly in accordance with the proposal.”
Andrews: “I’m in agreement with scrupling. The Scots Confession calls the pope the anti-Christ. I’m not required to scruple against that statement. I think it’s a false statement and embarrassment.” But Andrews would not acknowledge a right to scruple a specific constitutional requirement, such as the “fidelity/chastity” ordination clause.
Subscriptionist mode?
Coalter: “You could make a case that scrupling for doctrine may be far more important. What one means by being guided by the confessions is even more important. Are we increasingly in a subscriptionist mode?” Quoting from G-6.0106b, Coalter cited a number of practices that the current confessions of the PCUSA call sin that are simply ignored today – besides the requirement to “live either in fidelity within the covenant between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.”
G-6.0106bThose who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament. “Are we moving toward strict subscriptionism with the Book of Order and being incredibly fluid with doctrine?” Coalter asked.
The Coalition’s Mary Naegeli said, “It seems to me the ‘shall’ statements of the Book of Order are the essentials of the polity and the essentials of faith generally seem to mean the essentials of the confessions.”
Achtemeier: “I think your case would be more credible if you looked at the Book of Order and all you had was a procedural manual. But confessional positions crop up all the time in the Book of Order. Because you didn’t have the votes to put it in the confessions, you encoded G-6.0106b in the Book of Order as a doctrinal position.”
What does ‘shall’ mean?
Tony: “The reason G-60106b is not in the confessions, it says why: Among the standards in the confessions is fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness. The church made that decision, General Assembly after General Assembly after General Assembly. What do you think the church was saying when it put ‘shall’ in it?”
Coalter: “The church is not just the General Assembly. The presbyteries work with the candidates. Whether we like it or not, the presbyteries still have the authority to meet with candidates and determine whether those candidates meet the standards.”
Achtemeier: “A word needs to be said in here about our usage of the church – ‘the church has decided.'” He said that sounds like, “Our side are the church and that other group of people are in outer darkness somewhere. I think the Scripture binds us together with other folks in ways you simply can’t capture by saying, ‘We won the vote, so keep quiet.'”
Andrews: “Does the church have a right to its conscience, to be clear about that, to have a reasonable expectation about the church mandating and whether or not they can ignore the mandate?”
Coalter: “What is the mandate? The General Assembly puts something in the Book of Order; the presbytery then has to apply it.”
Tony: “The Book of Confessions points out a lot of things that are sinful. The presbytery has a right to examine and decide which of those sinful things are applied, especially when the church hasn’t decided. But what about the judgment of G-6.0106b, which is what the church decided?”
Argument against G-6.0106b?
Andrews: “What I’m hearing is an argument against G-6.0106b. What I’m waiting for is an argument against the church being able to mandate its behavior.”
Naegeli: “Why are we arguing about one – G-6.0106b? It’s because, it feels to me, that you disagree with the standard.”
Task Force member John “Mike” Loudon: “I don’t have a problem with it being in there.”
Andrews: “How can you have an intelligent discussion when you say G-6.0106b is a standard and not an essential? How can that be a happy conversation?”
Achtemeier: “I think our recommendations two through four begin to lay that out.”
Recommendations 2-4 2. The Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church recommends that the 217th General Assembly (2006) urge governing bodies, congregations, and other groups of Presbyterians to follow the example of the task force and other groups that, in the face of difficult issues, have engaged in community building, study, and collaborative work.
3. The Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church recommends that the 217th General Assembly (2006) commend for study the Theological Reflection that heads the task force report
4. The Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church recommends that the 217th General Assembly (2006) direct the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly, and urge those who plan and moderate meetings of other governing bodies, to explore the use of alternative forms of discernment and decision-making as a complement to parliamentary procedure, especially in dealing with potentially divisive issues. Andrews: “I really have to live with recommendation 5. Cannot the argument be made that this changes the practice of the church? Would it not be a fair argument, that such a change of practice ought to be submitted to the whole church?”
What are the essentials?
Coalter: “If you look at the pattern of the Presbyterian Church being asked about essentials, the church refused to give a list of essentials, all the while talking about in the ordination whether you will adhere to the essentials. But what are those essentials? Where are they decided? They’re not in the Book of Order. Your concern is a valid one. How does the church declare its conscience? The way it declares its conscience is through the constitutional process. There’s no checklist here, so who’s deciding this? You may not like the fact that there is no list of essentials, but there isn’t.”
During the afternoon session, Tony raised a constitutional issue, quoting from a July 2000 ruling by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission in a case titled Londonderry Presbyterian Church v. the Presbytery of Northern New England. “Would your authoritative interpretation conflict with this one?” he asked.
Coalter: “The Advisory Committee on the Constitution says it believes the General Assembly has the authority” to adopt the task force’s proposal to interpret whether G-6.0106b is essential for ordination.
Tony: “As I understand, the way you define standards, you have acknowledged and seek to maintain all of the previous and in-place standards of the church.”
Complicated climate unwanted
Wheeler: “We encouraged the 217th General Assembly not to make changes that would complicate the climate for the working out of recommendation 5 if that authoritative interpretation is passed.”
Tony cited the General Assembly PJC’s Londonderry ruling in which the presbytery was instructed to require one of its congregations to cease from openly defying the constitutional ordination requirement.
Tony noted that denomination’s highest court based its ruling on a previous decision in another case [Maxwell], in which the previous court declared that a presbytery erred by approving the ordination of a minister who refused to participate in the ordination of women. That evangelical minister, Walter Kenyon, was eventually defrocked because of his opposition to women’s ordinations. Citation from Londonderry caseThis Commission finds that there are no constitutional groun
The Presbyterian Lay Committee
136 Tremont Park Drive
P.O. Box 2210, Lenoir, NC 28645
Phone: 828.758.8716
Fax: 828.758.0920
© Copyright 2012. The Layman Online
DISCLAIMER: The Layman Online is a news and information resource. We welcome letters and commentaries from readers. Letters and commentaries are selected for publication based on their clarity and brevity, subject to editing, and also are chosen to represent a diverse set of views on as many issues as possible. These letters and commentaries are provided as an informational service and do not necessarily indicate an endorsement by The Layman Online or the Presbyterian Lay Committee.
]]>