Forum leader says moderator, stated clerk were out of line
The Layman Online, August 10, 2001
Bob Davis, executive director of the Presbyterian Forum, says Moderator Jack B. Rogers and Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick were out of line in their criticism of The Presbyterian Layman for a July editorial that declared the 213th General Assembly apostate.
The Forum is a renewal organization that has worked to help organize evangelicals to present their views at meetings of presbyteries, synods and the General Assembly. Davis, a former attorney, is a Presbyterian minister and a graduate of Fuller Theological Seminary.
In an E-mail to people involved in the Forum’s ministry, Davis said:
The Presbyterian News Service printed the text of a letter responding to editorials in The Presbyterian Layman. The Layman’s editorial had declared the 213th General Assembly to be apostate because it refused to affirm that “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved” (The San Joaquin overture). The Layman defined apostate as “departing from the stand.” They wrote, “An apostate assembly is one that has abandoned its religious tradition and the moral principles that emanate from it. That is precisely what this assembly has done.”
The response from the Moderator and Stated Clerk suggests that The Layman was out of line for a couple of reasons: a) because The Layman is not a church court with authority to “declare” apostasy; and b) because the statement the Assembly actually did approve was not apostate. Further, the moderator and stated clerk declare that disciplinary action is likely. They conclude, “to imply the abandonment of Christian faith and to presume to make solemn declarations of apostasy on faithful ministers and elders duly elected to serve as commissioners by their presbyteries is clearly beyond the spirit of our ordination vows.”
What’s going on here?
1. There appears to be an intentional institutional attempt to isolate and alienate The Layman. This is the second shot across The Layman’s bow by the moderator – the first being in Denver when he suggested that there were two confessing church movements. In short, the renewal side of the church has been targeted by the institution in a “divide and conquer” strategy.
Does that sound a little paranoid? Perhaps it sounds that way; however, consider that there has been NO institutional comment about the following, despite having notice about it for several months:
“JOIN THE NEW GRASSROOTS EFFORT FOR DISSENT AND NON-COMPLIANCE WITH AMENDMENT B.” Click the link and read, “Joe Gilmore, pastor of South Presbyterian Church in Dobbs Ferry, NY, wishes to extend an invitation to inclusive churches in the PCUSA, to join in an act of dissent and public statement of noncompliance with G-6.0106b.” (Here’s the URL: http://www.mlp.org/index.html)
If the standard is “clearly beyond the spirit of our ordination vows”, why only The Layman?
2. There are a couple of cliches that come to mind with the response letter – the pot calling the kettle black or specks and logs. In their rush to judgment on The Layman, the moderator and stated clerk have jumped the disciplinary gun. If The Layman does not have the institutional authority to make declarations about the General Assembly, how is it that the stated clerk and Moderator have the original authority to “declare” The Layman to be “clearly beyond the spirit of our ordination vows?”
If process is the concern, then let process be the concern.
3. The response issues a presumptive judgment that is lacking in several respects. First, it is remarkable in ruling out the possibility of a prophetic voice within the Presbyterian Church (USA). If the institution is the only body capable of determining truth, then the institution itself is the only possible prophetic voice. Councils may err, but only the General Assembly can say so. Second, it ignores the fact that the Assembly action occurred only after it rejected the affirmations of Scripture. San Joaquin asked the General Assembly to affirm Acts 4:12 “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.” That’s what The Layman editorial addressed; the General Assembly specifically did NOT make that affirmation, instead choosing to issue a statement that may or may not be consistent with it (depending on who is interpreting it). Third, it means that there is a nebulous standard for ordination vows: evangelicals will be judged by the “spirit of the ordination vows,” not the words that are actually there.